Loading...
2025, 03-04 Winter WorkshopMINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Special Meeting Winter Workshop Tuesday, March 4, 2025 Mayor Haley called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. The meeting was held in person in Council Chambers, and also remotely via Zoom meeting. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Pam Haley, Mayor John Hohman, City Manager Tim Hattenburg, Deputy Mayor Erik Lamb, Deputy City Manager Rod Higgins, Councilmember Gloria Mantz, City Services Administrator Laura Padden, Councilmember Chelsie Walls, Finance Director Jessica Yaeger, Councilmember Robert Blegen, Public Works Director Ben Wick, Councilmember John Bottelli, Parks & Rec Director Al Merkel, Councilmember Jill Smith, Communications Manager Mike Basinger, Economic Development Director Dave Ellis, Police Chief John Whitehead, HR Director Glenn Ritter, Senior Engineer Sarah Farr, Accounting & Finance Program Mngr Morgan Koudelka, Senior Admin. Analyst Sean Walter, Assistant Police Chief Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Miguel Aguirre, IT Specialist Marci Patterson, City Clerk ROLL CALL: City Clerk Patterson called roll; all Councilmembers were present. NON ACTION ITEMS: 1. Introduction — John Hohman City Manager Hohman provided an introduction to the winter workshop and a brief overview of the materials that would be discussed during the workshop. Mr. Hohman also reviewed the council priorities that were previously approved. Deputy City Manager Lamb reviewed the 2025 budget, the General Fund revenues and expenditures, the sales tax, the considerations for the 2026 budget and a 2026 budget timeline. 2. TBD Fee Collection Update — Chelsie Walls Finance Director Walls reviewed the current standing for the TBD funds and noted that we are facing a shortage in that fund due to an error in the information that the city received from the Department of Licensing (DOL) when the calculations we initially created. Estimated, the city will be about a million dollars short in the TBD fee collected based on the error in calculations from the DOL. Ms. Walls noted that DOL has since provided an updated licensing list. Those finds go to our street fiend and leaves a shortfall in that fund due to the miscalculation. The city is able to cover that shortfall for the 2025 budget, but it is not sustainable for future budgets. 3. Police Cost Update - Erik Lamb Mr. Lamb provided details of the contract for policing services and the cost to our overall budget and much of the information was provided recently and staff is still reviewing the calculations. Erik also provided information on the collective bargaining update and the updates for the officers and the other costs associated with the contract operational costs. Council discussed the number of officers and how the indirect costs are calculated and what the impact is to our city budget and that we need to be planning for increases. Mr. Lamb noted that some of that would be discussed later in the workshop as well. Council Meeting Minutes, Study Session: 03-04-2025 Page 1 of 4 Approved by Council: 04-08-2025 4. Law Enforcement Staffing - Phase II - Erik Lamb Mr. Lamb reviewed the Phase II items for the next round officers that included multiple discussions with the Chief and the public safety committee. He noted the current lack of funding if choosing to move forward and that funding has not been identified. Mr. Lamb noted that the next phase included seven positions; four patrol deputies, one school resource officer, one shared Sexual Assault Detective, and one Behavior Health Deputy. Mr. Lamb noted that this phase included needs that were identified in the Matrix study as well as fiscal considerations as some of the positions could be partially funded by other revenue sources such as the schools and a grant -funded position. Mr. Lamb identified at least an additional $1,000,000.00 needed for the next phase of positions. Mr. Lamb let the Public Safety Committee members speak to the next phase of officers. Deputy Mayor Hattenburg spoke about the need for the positions and the need to continue the long term plan that the Matrix study started. The city would like to continue the efforts of reevaluating the needs for long term and keeping up with the growth needs. The city could tie the next round of hiring to the population growth in the city. Councilmember Wick noted that the committee agreed to the need of the different positions and a lot of needs throughout the community and really comes down to revenues and how do we pay for this and many discussions on the public safety sales tax and putting it to a vote of the people. Councilmember Merkel noted that he feels another tax is not necessary and referred back to zero budgeting and thinks that the funds can be found by using the zero budgeting method and build up the budget for the officers. Councilmember Padden spoke to crime levels and funding the policies that come down from the state level. Council also discussed the indirect costs associated with the officers and our current contract and that there may be a need to review some of the costs associated with our contract. Mr. Hohman noted that the workshop was intended to provide a snapshot of what the city and staff are currently working with and that they will continue to move forward with review of the indirect costs, the contract and the needs of the community. 5. Tax Comparison to Other Cities - Erik Lamb Mr. Lamb discussed the public safety costs for like -sized cities and what their overall police comparisons are for like size cities. He reviewed the spending per capita, other revenue comparisons in taxes such as utility, REST, public safety taxes, criminal justice sales tax, franchise fees, sales tax comparison, total revenue per capita. Mr. Lamb discussed that per capita for total revenue that we are significantly lower than other surrounding cities and we really are doing more with less. Councilmember Merkel noted that sales tax is where the city is falling behind suggested an underutilized business property tax for business properties that are not being used. Council also discussed the city economic development for stability. Mayor Haley called for a recess at 10: 22arn fore 10 minutes and that the meeting would resume at 10: 23am. 6. Revenue/Tax Options - Erik Lamb, Chelsie Walls Mr. Lamb opened the conversation with details on the current revenue sources. Mr. Lamb also noted the tight timeline if there was interest in getting anything out to the voters and noted that he would cover that later in the workshop. He discussed a property tax, a city public safety sales tax, potential utility taxes, the Transportation Benefit District (TBD) fee, Business & Occupation tax, or other various limited purpose taxes or fees. Mr. Lamb reviewed the 1% property tax that has not been taken since 2007 or the banked capacity that could be available or a voter approved levy lid lift that could be done as well. Mr. Lamb explained how a levy lid lift was done and what kind of revenue could be expected with each option. He also detailed the public safety sales tax and what that would look like if taken to the voters and what the financial outcome could be if approved and implemented. Council discussed a potential tax and making it a vote of the people. Council noted that a sales tax and it would be easier to collect and would be shared with people outside of the city as they come to shop our stores and make purchases in the city. Deputy Mayor Hattenburg noted that 48% of the sales tax currently is paid by non-residents, so an increase in a sales tax would not be the paid by only the city residents. He also noted the drastic drop in the city utility tax and that he would support a sales tax increase if it went to a vote of the people. Councilmember Padden expressed that she would approve a tax if it was voted on and approved by the people to get the services that are needed as she is usually a non -tax supporter. Councilmember Wick noted that a tax definitely needs to be a vote of the people and allow them to make the decisions and noted that surrounding jurisdictions have already approved Council Meeting Minutes, Study Session: 03-04-2025 Page 2 of 4 Approved by Council: 04-08-2025 a sales tax. Councilmember Higgins noted that the tax should be something that can be easily collected without having to bring on additional staff to support it and that is should be something that the public can vote on and see that it is for needed services. Councilmember Merkel noted that any tax should be with a vote of the people and while he supported a tax earlier, he believes the city should be looking at internal revenues first and zero budgeting. Mayor Haley noted that as a city we need to continue to maintain all the services and not just look at public safety as there are additional priorities that have been addressed. She also noted that she is not for new taxes and would support a public safety sales tax because the citizens have said they would support it and that 48% of it comes from those outside the city as well. Mr. Hohman noted that the city is in a difficult budget time and that council would like to continue to support all of the priorities and still support the economic development. 7. Updating Existing Fees - Gloria Mantz Ms. Mantz reviewed the PowerPoint presentation and went over the Right -of -Way permit fees, provided a background on permit fee information, engineering fees, planning fees, building fees. She also highlighted that staff has not been able to keep up on the review of the right -of- way permit fees and that they city has had to pause on some the permits to allow for catch up due to the workload capacity with staff. Ms. Mantz detailed the consultant that was hired to assist with the workload. Ms. Mantz reviewed the averages for fees with our surrounding jurisdictions and provided details on where the city is with our current fees and what it could potentially look like if the city increased some of the fees. She noted that for most of the fees the city is considerably lower than surrounding cities. Ms. Mantz also reviewed the grading engineering permit fees, business fees and building fees. Council discussed the quality of work that the city has for any of the patches that are done to our roads from other service providers and our staff works very hard to maintain a quality level of service. Council discussed the need for an additional staff member as the current inspector will be retiring and it is necessary to train someone early in order to maintain the level of service the city desires. Ms. Mantz also reviewed details of the master fee schedule and noted that staff may return later to further discuss the fees. 8. Citywide Transportation Impact Fees - Robert Blegen Public Works Director Blegen provided a PowerPoint presentation and reviewed the potential for citywide transportation impact fees. Mr. Blegen provided details on what a Transportation Impact Fee is and what it means for the city. He also detailed how impact fees are calculated, the benefits of an impact fee, reviewed the existing impact fee areas in the city, where impact fees have been used within the city, and options for a city wide impact fee. Mr. Blegen closed with recommendations for potentially implementing impact fees. Council discussed the various impact fee options within the city. Mayor Haley called for a lunch recess at 12: 00pm for 45 minutes and that the ineeting would resume at 12: 45pm. 9. School Zone Cameras - Robert Blegen Mr. Beegen provided details with a PowerPoint Presentation that included an overview of what speed safety cameras (SSC) are and what the SSC implementation process would look like, the data collections, citation and revenue estimates, and highlights from what other jurisdictions are doing. Council discussed the cost of implementation, the fees collected, staff required for the maintenance and fee collection and what could be done with the finds that are collected. Mr. Blegen noted that the cameras detect only the license plates and not the driver or passengers and it to be used specifically for speeding. The city would be implementing the systems in school zones. 10. Ballot Calendar - Erik Lamb Mr. Lamb reviewed possible dates for potentially going out to the voters for a tax or anything else that they may be interested in. Council showed interest in an August election if they chose to put anything forward to the voters. 11. Indirect Cost Study Background & Update - Chelsie Walls, Gloria Mantz Council Meeting Minutes, Study Session: 03-04-2025 Page 3 of 4 Approved by Council: 04-08-2025 Ms. Walls provided details on creating an indirect cost allocation plan for the city. Currently looking at those costs and the services provided within the departments. Working with a consultant and looking to bring it back at the Budget Workshop. 12.Other Budget Considerations - John Hohman City Manager Hohman provided details on other budget topics and how council would like staff to proceed with the budget. He asked council,if staff should continue to maintain all the current priorities or look at only public safety, as noted by Councilmember Merkel and build up the zero based budgeting system? Councilmember Higgins noted that there are many state mandates that have to be taken into consideration when creating our budget and that we have been very fiscally sound with our budget in the past and he would like to see the city continue to review the budget as we have in the past. Councilmember Merkel noted that he feels we need to build the budget back up from zero on the things we need to pay for. Councilmember Wick feels that we are close to a zero based budget as there is not an assumed amount of funding for each budget or department each year and see a line item detail for each budget. Councilmember Yaeger feels that the way the city has been budgeting is working well and we need to balance each of our priorities during the budget process. Deputy Mayor Hattenburg noted that our process works well and we can make cuts where it is necessary along the way and we are a full service city and have to provide those services. Mr. Hohman noted that staff will stay on track with how we have been doing things and will continue to work with the budget to maintain all the priorities that have been approved. 13. Closing- Remarks - John Hohman Mr. Hohman closed with thanking staff for the work that went into the workshop today. He also thanked council for the input and the dialogue on all the topics and for their time today. Mayor Haley noted that she doesn't like the implication that staff is not doing what needs to be done and wanted to acknowledge staff and how much they do and get done and how appreciated they truly are. Mayor Haley adjourned the workshop at 1:41 pm. ATTEST: �A Marei atterson, ity Clerk <�;� 0.-Q Pam Haley, Mayor Council Meeting Minutes, Study Session: 03-04-2025 Approved by Council: 04-08-2025 Page 4 of 4 Tuesday, March 4, 2025 AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING WINTER WORKSHOP City Hall Council Chambers 10210 E. Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 8:30 a.m. 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. • Join the Zoom WEB Meeting (Please Silence Your Cell Phones during the Meeting) WELCOME: Mayor Haley ROLL CALL: NON -ACTION ITEMS: 1. Introduction John Hohman, City Manager; Erik Lamb, Deputy City Manager; Chelsie Walls, Finance Director 2. TBD Fee Collection Update Chelsie Walls 3. Police Cost Update Erik Lamb 4. Law Enforcement Staffing — Phase II Erik Lamb 5. Tax Comparison to Other Cities Erik Lamb 6. Revenue/Tax Options Erik Lamb, Chelsie Walls 7. Updating Existing Fees Gloria Mantz 8. Citywide Transportation Impact Fees Robert Blegen LUNCH BREAK at approximately 12:00 — 12:45 (Note: Council & Staff move to the second -floor multi -purpose room for lunch) 9. School Zone Cameras Robert Blegen 10. Ballot Calendar Erik Lamb 11. Indirect Cost Study Background & Update Chelsie Walls, Gloria Mantz 12. Other Budget Considerations John Hohman 13. Closing Remarks John Hohman ADJOURN Workshop Agenda: March 4,2025 Page 1 of 1 CL t L Q L 4) LO N O N U L 10 V > No N No N _ 0 I MIMMEM ANNA O i CL }, i No OANNA = ANNA O 0. .� ca i L ANNA � _ •N O v O� V =r. •O CL U) � N t ANN+ O L ANNA _ G� O = L Q - CL No 0 •N v v O 'xNo i 0 MOMMEM+ E O ,> caO .IMMEM no O p G� O — O E ca CL r �_ Q> � � O � v ,_ � O _ � = Q ANNA > Qi L ■� No O Ov LM 'E = ca c ,iii O }' •_ = o5 as ON. t� p i O MOMMEMO ANNO i •� t W t t♦"+I� u M LL Q N O N N Cocn N E cn � cn W _0 U— p O W co Q M cfl U LO c O 0) C: 0) - L .O N U CM N (p of 6,3- O .- Z 6ct LL L W rL W C CN O Cfl L O O E C`7 O a) n ^ W cu O E N C`7 O cn N C= Q N 0) L L ilia O O O 0 r M C) 0 U-) v- 0 4-0 � C'7 Cfl O O Cfl m O � o L O O O IT CD L C ) U-) co U O o Q T- IT- N V- N co 09- 09- 09- M .- LL L i Q W Q E O O cn cu E lq- a) cn cu a) cn O O Q _cu a) L E U L 0 a) (a a) L O L- O E N 6} cn O cu Q 0) O 0) O O L- O E N 6} O (a cn a) L cn cu a) E a) E O O i� W r O cn E cu Q a) }' 0) U m L O N O �N L — 0 a) ch cu N (a U 'cu a) 0 cu cu 0 //cu `J U 0) a) a cn 0 O CN 0) cn a) . 0 0 CU U cn 0cu L - 0) O (a a) cn a) E cu - O E 6} a) L cn I..1_ E a) U cu a) E cr COcu V cn O cn cu cu \U a) L a) a L� Z) CN a) a) Q Q U L L 0 E cu a) (a E cn O A A A A A A C C'7 L O O E co N O N cn (a N L U LL LL O E N N co cu L ^u W a co � N O � (D N 0) E � O m 4-- x HO 00 N p L W � /0` CU � W Co cn N W W a) 6 n • • 9 c N 0 0 ti 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 m 2015 00 2014 2013 i 2012 2011 n 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 0 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 0 2016 2015 I 2014 2013 0 2012 _ V 2011 x H 2010 = 2009 0 F 2008 I 2007 2006 2005 2004 S 8 8 8 S 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 © � o L6 o Lri 0 N O N L O LDONE w 6 L 4- 0 _(1) Q :3 O O L)L) .-. Q O O c L) U 4-0 (� � .E 5 N � (B O 0 (B m cn N E a)cn }, O N U) N > O 0 v N cn z E U C `� O a) cu >, O o � Q 0 c �, CL E cn O Cn L)% U cu cn 0)N C: E Ncu N O O Q cu cu O U a)m O � — cn c� a)0) > O (B a) O U cn a)Q (U Q j = L) = .2 cn L a)O — -I--' c J a) O L LCU76 _O (a L� cu U N U 4- O Q a)Q cnU CU � 0 — I c� >, 0) o o O O U >, a)Lim- N � L E a) O z N O cB a) O in U N o— x m N as a) L) � += N L O Q X 75 L) C: O �L O �O cn U L) U CU (u0)a)a) U}' O N cu cL p N c c (B cn CU —) Lcl) am W N 0-1 CU� O N cn Fn E j, O z > c cu � J U L I 0 O U to L w Cl) C ��� � � p c �0 � _ o U a 0 co to C-4 Co Q to +� Q N to N N p � N N N X _ L Q W O = N N � co m y m O LLf Q / ._ Z a d co 2 � > N O N 0 -0 •W - Q ^6 ` �_m L- -0N Q O N N W CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 4, 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: Transportation Benefit District Fee Collection Update GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.11.020 — Powers vested in legislative bodies of noncharter and charter code cities; RCW 36.73 — Transportation Benefit Districts; Chapter 3.85 SVMC. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: • Ordinance 23-018 establishing the transportation benefit district (TBD) adopted October 24, 2023. • Ordinance 23-022 assuming the powers of the TBD adopted November 21, 2023. • Ordinance 23-024 establishing an annual vehicle license fee adopted December 12, 2023. BACKGROUND: The City established a transportation benefit district (TBD) in October 2023 and implemented a $20 license fee in December 2023, which was effective starting July 1, 2024. The fee is administered by the Washington State Department of Licensing (DOL), and DOL retains 1 % of the fee to cover administrative costs. The remainder of the fee is remitted to the City monthly. In the discussions leading up to the adoption of the license fee, staff worked with DOL to obtain vehicle counts in order to estimate license fee revenues. DOL directed staff to submit a public record request to get this information (see attachments), which indicated that there were 140,676 vehicles in the City that would be subject to the license fee. This led to the initial license fee estimate of $2.7 million annually and $1.4 million in 2024, as is shown in the 2025 Budget. However, as actual collections came in throughout 2024, staff determined that actual collections were substantially lower than expected. Staff emailed DOL for assistance in determining the reason for the discrepancy (see attachments for response). DOL's response indicated that they had a "system -wide glitch in vehicle count estimates" during the time that estimates were provided for the City which "resulted in duplicate entries and skewed data throughout the state." A new link was provided in the email to the new vehicle count estimates which showed there are 90,895 vehicles in the City subject to the license fees. This results in a new estimate of $1.8 million annually which is a reduction of about $986k or about 35% from the initial estimate. Vehicle license fees are collected in the Transportation Benefit District Fund #111 and are then transferred to the Street Fund #101 to help pay for street maintenance activities. With the unexpected lower collections of the license fee, staff evaluated the Street Fund #101 to verify if operations were still solvent. See the attachments for the updated Street Fund #101 budget. This analysis shows that even though recurring expenditures exceed recurring revenues by $738k, there is adequate fund balance reserves to maintain operations through 2025 at the budgeted levels. However, further discussion will be needed for the 2026 Budget to bring recurring expenditures in line with recuring revenues. Maintenance activities performed in the Street Fund #101 include crack sealing, pothole filling, right-of-way maintenance, bridge maintenance, and winter snow removal. OPTIONS: Discussion only. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion only. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Walls, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: • DOL Public Record Request 23-5490 from March 2023 • Email from DOL Contract Manager on January 14, 2025 • Street Fund Projection \\svfsl\Public Folders\City Clerk\Agenda Packets for Web\2025\2025, 03-04 Winter Workshop\2. Street Fund Projections 2025 02 24 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2/24/2025 2025 Budget 2024 2024 2026 Difference Between As 1st 2nd As Estimated Proposed 2024 and 2026 Adopted Amendment Amendment Amended ActuaIs Budget $ % #101 -STREET FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Utility Tax 900,000 0 0 900,000 940,000 900,000 0 0.00% Motor Vehicle Fuel (Gas) Tax 1,950,700 0 0 1,950,700 1,908,800 1,969,700 19,000 0.97% Multimodal Transportation Revenue 137,500 0 0 137,500 137,500 138,200 700 0.51% Right -of -Way Maintenance Fee 100,000 0 0 100,000 100,000 100,000 0 0.00% Solid Waste Road Wear Fee 1,700,000 0 0 1,700,000 2,033,000 1,700,000 0 0.00% Investment Interest 10,000 0 0 10,000 268,200 10,000 0 0.00% Miscellaneous 10,000 0 0 10,000 10,000 10,000 0 0.00% Transfer in-#111 0 1,392,500 0 1,392,500 830,500 1,799,000 406,500 29.19% Total Recurring Revenues 4,808,200 1,392,500 0 6,200,700 6,228,000 6,626,900 426,200 6.87% Expenditures Wages / Benefits / Payroll Taxes 1,641,850 259,851 0 1,901,701 1,901,701 1,875,610 (26,091) (1.37%) Street Program 2,986,150 (730,825) 0 2,255,325 2,255,325 2,044,287 (211,038) (9.36%) Maintenance Shop 24,550 0 0 24,550 24,550 30,322 5,772 23.51% Winter Operations 1,564,464 0 0 1,564,464 1,564,464 1,053,299 (511,165) (32.67%) Bridge Program 68,750 0 0 68,750 68,750 68,000 (750) (1.09%) Local Street Program 1,579,560 0 0 1,579,560 1,579,560 0 (1,579,560) (100.00%) Traffic Program 6,000 888,365 0 894,365 894,365 1,177,367 283,002 31.64% Intergovernmental Payments 1,160,000 (385,000) 0 775,000 775,000 745,000 (30,000) (3.87%) Vehicle rentals - #501 (non -plow vehicle rental) 41,950 0 0 41,950 41,950 71,200 29,250 69.73% Vehicle rentals - #501 (plow replace.) 300,000 0 0 300,000 300,000 300,000 0 0.00% Total Recurring Expenditures 9,373,274 32,391 0 9,405,665 9,405,665 7,365,085 (2,040,580) (21.70%) Recurring Revenues Over (Under) Recurring Expenditures (4,565,074) 1,360,109 0 (3,204,965) (3,177,665) (738,185) NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Transfers in - #001 4,592,923 (1,392,500) 0 3,200,423 3,200,423 0 (3,200,423) (100.00%) Transfers in - #312 0 0 0 0 0 1,750,000 1,750,000 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Revenues 4,592,923 (1,392,500) 0 3,200,423 3,200,423 1,750,000 (1,450,423) (45.32%) Expenditures Capital Equipment Replacement Programs 225,000 0 0 225,000 225,000 135,000 (90,000) (40.00%) Local Street Program 0 0 0 0 0 1,750,000 1,750,000 0.00% Bridge Replacement Program 25,000 0 0 25,000 25,000 0 (25,000) (100.00%) Traffic Signal Program Tools & Equipment 0 57,375 0 57,375 57,375 0 (57,375) (100.00%) Traffic Signal Program Office Furniture 0 14,000 0 14,000 14,000 0 (14,000) (100.00%) Transfers out - #501 (BucketTruck(Vehicles signal p 0 205,000 0 205,000 205,000 0 (205,000) (100.00%) Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 250,000 276,375 0 526,375 526,375 1,885,000 1,358,625 258.11% Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures 4,342,923 (1,668,875) 0 2,674,048 2,674,048 (135,000) Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures (222,151) (308,766) 0 (530,917) (503,617) (873,185) Beginning unrestricted fund balance 4,599,598 4,599,598 4,599,598 4,095,981 Ending unrestricted fund balance 4,377,447 4,068,681 4,095,981 3,222,796 3/28/23, 1:05 PM Request 23-5490 - NextRequest - Modern FOIA & Public Records Request Software Skip to main content Public Record Requests WA Department of Licensing Request Visibility: 0 Unpublished Request 23-5490 O Dates Due April 14, 2023 Received March 15, 2023 via web Requester o Chelsie Taylor 0 ctaylor@spokanevalley.org Q 10210 E Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA, 99206 509-720-5040 City of Spokane Valley- Finance Director Staff Assigned Departments Data and Research Team Point of contact Coleton O Request I'm researching how much revenue could be generated with license tab fees for a transportation benefit district for the City of Spokane Valley. Could you please provide the number of licensed vehicles in the City of Spokane Valley? Thanks! Chelsie Taylor Finance Director Timeline Documents Request Closed❑ Hello, The following information is responsive to your request: The forecasting TBD Revenue Forecasting by Location' was run for the Spokane Valley location code (3213). This report forecasts 140,676 vehicles would be subject to TBD fees in Spokane Valley if all the vehicles with registrations expiring in the date range of 4/1 /2023 - 3/31 /2024 were to be renewed. The requested information has been provided. The request is now complete and closed. Public Please let us know if you have any questions. https://wadolpublicrecords.nextrequest.com/requests/23-5490 1 /4 3/28/23, 1:05 PM Request 23-5490 - NextRequest - Modern FOIA & Public Records Request Software Sincerely, Coleton O. 77, External Message Requester +Staff Hello, We have received your recent request for records. We have begun researching your request and will need additional time to gather and review records. You can expect an update on or before April 14, 2023. If you would like to modify your request, please let us know as soon as possible. You can check on the status of your request or access records as they become available by logging in to your NextRequest account. You will receive emails when your request is updated and modified. You can adjust the amount of emails you receive by clicking the "Settings" button at the top right corner of your screen. Sometimes we must charge for making copies or scanned images of our records before we can provide them to you. If you are charged for scanning, copying, or data services, we will send you an invoice with a detailed description of the charges. Please let me know if you have any further concerns or any questions. Thank you. March 23, 2023, 7:22am by Coleton O, Coordinator (Staff) AR Department Assignment Public Removed: Public Records. https://wadolpublicrecords.nextrequest.com/requests/23-5490 2/4 3/28/23, 1:05 PM Request 23-5490 - NextRequest - Modern FOIA & Public Records Request Software Due Date Changed Pub'" 04/14/2023 (was 03/22/2023). AR Department Assignment Pub'" Added: Public Records. Removed: Vehicle/vessel requests from government agencies. F�-'3 External Message /"% Requester + Staff Thank you for contacting the Washington State Department of Licensing. Your request for records has been received. Vehicle or vessel requests: You can anticipate receiving records or an update from us within *14 business days*. If payment is required, additional processing time will be needed. We cannot accommodate rush requests. Requester Support: Need help with a particular records request? Reply to an email notification and we'll answer as quickly as possible. If you need technical support with NextRequest software check out the topics below to find answers to common questions: • How to access your Public Records Request (video) • How can I access my NextRequest account? -(article) • How to upload a document to your request_(article). • How can I download my records? (video) • How can I get an update about my public records request? -(article) • 1 tried to reset my password but never received the email. What should I do?_(article). https://wadolpublicrecords.nextrequest.com/requests/23-5490 3/4 3/28/23, 1:05 PM Request 23-5490 - NextRequest - Modern FOIA & Public Records Request Software • My request was submitted under an email I don't have access to. What should I do? -(article). • My request was closed before I could download my records. How can I get to them?_(article). March 15, 2023, 12:12pm AR Department Assignment Pub'" Vehicle/vessel requests from government agencies 25 Request Opened Pub'" Request received via web March 15, 2023, 12:12pm by the requester RAD FAQS HELP PRIVACY TERMS WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT... V NEXtRequeSt >owexeo er CIVICPLUS https://wadolpublicrecords.nextrequest.com/requests/23-5490 4/4 From: DeVol. Bradley (DOL) To: Chelsie Walls Subject: RE: Question on City of Spokane Valley TBD Collections Date: Tuesday, January 14, 2025 5:03:11 PM Attachments: imaoe002.pna imaae003.Dna imaoe004.Dna [EXTERNAL] This email originated outside the City of Spokane Valley. Always use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Hello Chelsie, I checked with the public disclosure team at DOL who pulled the original report for you, and I found out some useful information. Your vehicle estimate report was pulled in March 2023 and used a forecast range of 4/1/2023 — 3/31/2024 for location code 3213. One possible explanation for the discrepancy you are seeing between projection and actual is a system -wide glitch in vehicle count estimates that DOL was seeing at the time, which resulted in duplicate entries and skewed data across the agency. This problem was not identified until sometime around March 2024, and definitely put your vehicle count estimate in the range of those affected by the glitch. We are truly sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused you, and since identifying the issue, we have taken considerable measures to correct it. TBD vehicle estimates can now be accessed by anyone by visiting this site: https://data.wa.gov/Transportation/Transportation-Benefit-District- Esti mated-Veh icle-/h m p6-gj kz/a bout data Please accept my sincere apology for your inconvenience and don't hesitate to reach out to me with any questions or concerns. Thank you, BRADLEY DEVOL, J.D. �•� Contract Manager Department of Licensing I dol.wa.gov (360) 634-5131 1 bdevol@dol.wa.gov From: Chelsie Walls <cwalls@spokanevalleywa.gov> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2025 11:49 AM To: DeVol, Bradley (DOL) <BDeVol@DOL.WA.GOV> Subject: Question on City of Spokane Valley TBD Collections External Email Bradley, We are about 6 months into collecting our $20 tab fee under the City of Spokane Valley Transportation Benefit District, and our collections are quite a bit lower than we had estimated based on the number of vehicles that DOL had provided to us (please see the attached pdf file). At the vehicle registration count of 140,676, 1 estimated that we'd generate about $1.3 million for the first 6 months and about $2.7 million annually. However, it looks Like we're going to be $700k for the first 6 months. I'm trying to determine why there is such a Large discrepancy between the estimates and actuals. Are you able to help me with this? If not, can you please provide the contact information of someone who can? Thank you in advance for any assistance you can provide. Chelsie Walls // Finance Director 10210 E. Sprague Ave // Spokane Valley, WA 99206 509-720-5040 // cwalls(@SpokaneValleyWA.gov 00� SpoKaane ,;oo*Va11ey- This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act, chapter 42.56 RCW. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 4, 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: Law Enforcement Collective Bargaining Update GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Interlocal Agreement with Spokane County and the Spokane County Sheriff's Office for Law Enforcement Services (No. 17-104.06) ("Interlocal Agreement"). PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Interlocal Agreement for Law Enforcement Services as provided by the Spokane County Sheriff's Office ("Sheriff') to the City of Spokane Valley, contract number 17-104, adopted by Council on July 25, 2017, amended multiple times and renewed on November 22, 2022; Administrative Report from Matrix on April 18, 2023. Staff presented the Police Calls for Service and Staffing Evaluation completed by Matrix on November 6, 2023. Staff presented an update on implementation of the Matrix recommendations on January 30, 2024. Spokane Valley Police Chief Ellis provided an administrative report on the Spokane County Sheriff's Office new recruitment and retention plan on February 6, 2024. On February 13, 2024, City Council ranked public safety as its top priority for 2024. On February 27, 2024, City Council voted to approve hiring of ten new commissioned officers, one civilian analyst, and the shared lieutenant for the Office of Professional Standards. The 2025 Budget was adopted on November 19, 2025. On January 7, 2025, City Council authorized the specific positions for the additional positions. BACKGROUND: The City has proactively managed law enforcement services since incorporation through ongoing contracted law enforcement services with the Spokane County Sheriff's Office. Spokane County and the Sheriff's Office have collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) with deputies and with captains and lieutenants. The Sheriff's Office has finalized negotiations with the deputies (the "DSA CBA") and the DSA CBA is pending Spokane County Board of County Commissioner Approval. Such review is anticipated on March 4, 2025. The City has recently received the preliminary cost estimates for the DSA CBA, which are discussed below. Estimated annual costs increases for the combined Sheriff's Office unincorporated and Spokane Valley Police Department are: • 2025 - $2,277,537.60 • 2026 - $1,107,704.00 (above 2025 amount) • 2027 - $879,320.00 (above 2026 amount) Total estimated increases for the three-year period is $9,927,339. We estimate that Spokane Valley will account for approximately 48% of these costs, or $4,765,122 over the three-year period. It is important to note that the City just recently received this information and staff are working to confirm what costs are included and whether any additional costs may be expected under the DSA CBA. This includes confirming what amount these estimates are increasing over (i.e., 2024 actuals, 2024 budgeted, or a different base figure), confirming whether indirect costs that may be 1 1 loge related to salary amounts were included, and whether other tangential related costs (such as specialty pay) were included. In addition to the DSA CBA, Spokane County and the Sheriff's Office are negotiating with the lieutenants and captains and impacts are unknown from such negotiations. Exempt employees (such as Undersheriffs) maintain salary separation with represented positions and so may also see potential changes pending the outcome of the lieutenants' and captains' negotiations. Finally, it is important to note that we have not yet been able to confirm the impacts from the estimated increases provided by the Sheriff's Office against the City's current 2025 budget. The 2025 budget did include inflationary adjustments of 5% and $1.5 million in contingencies anticipating material and substantial increases for law enforcement negotiations. Staff will be providing updates through the 2026 budget development process as the true impacts are understood and identified. OPTIONS: Discussion. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The 2025 Budget includes $34,020,271 for Law Enforcement Services. This amount includes an increase of 5% over the 2024 budget for inflation and other general cost increases and $1.5 million in contingencies anticipating material and substantial increases for law enforcement negotiations. Staff are evaluating how the increased costs estimated from the DSA CBA and other negotiations will impact the 2025 Law Enforcement budget and future years and will provide updates throughout the 2026 Budget development process. STAFF CONTACT: Erik Lamb, Deputy City Manager; Dave Ellis, Spokane Valley Police Chief; Morgan Koudelka, Sr. Administrative Analyst. ATTACHMENTS: 21 Page CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 4, 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: Law Enforcement Staffing — Phase II GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Interlocal Agreement with Spokane County and the Spokane County Sheriff's Office for Law Enforcement Services (No. 17-104.06) ("Interlocal Agreement"). PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Interlocal Agreement for Law Enforcement Services as provided by the Spokane County Sheriff's Office ("Sheriff') to the City of Spokane Valley, contract number 17-104, adopted by Council on July 25, 2017, amended multiple times and renewed on November 22, 2022; Administrative Report from Matrix on April 18, 2023. Staff presented the Police Calls for Service and Staffing Evaluation completed by Matrix on November 6, 2023. Staff presented an update on implementation of the Matrix recommendations on January 30, 2024. Spokane Valley Police Chief Ellis provided an administrative report on the Spokane County Sheriff's Office new recruitment and retention plan on February 6, 2024. On February 13, 2024, City Council ranked public safety as its top priority for 2024. On February 27, 2024, City Council voted to approve hiring of ten new commissioned officers, one civilian analyst, and the shared lieutenant for the Office of Professional Standards. The 2025 Budget was adopted on November 19, 2025. On January 7, 2025, City Council authorized the specific positions for the additional positions. BACKGROUND The City has proactively managed law enforcement services since incorporation through ongoing contracted law enforcement services with the Spokane County Sheriff's Office. Pursuant to the Interlocal Agreement renewed in 2022 and amended in 2025, the parties have agreed to 101 dedicated Spokane Valley officers and 41 commissioned officers that are shared between Spokane Valley and Spokane County. Note that the 41 shared positions include two shared positions added in 2023 — one for RIG 9 Investigative Unit tied to the Real Time Crime Center and one for an administrative undersheriff position (originally an undersheriff that went to a civilian position and returned to an undersheriff position). In 2023, a third shared position for a lieutenant in the Office of Professional Standards was added, which is one of the positions recommended by Matrix. Finally, as part of the Phase II implementation, the Sheriff's Office added one Sexual Assault Detective added in 2025 that will be discussed further as part of this presentation. There are six patrol districts in Spokane Valley and Spokane Valley Police are required to provide a minimum of one patrol officer per district on duty at all times. Due to a variety of reasons, including significant increases in calls for service, the City hired Matrix Consulting Group Ltd. ("Matrix") in 2022-2023 to complete a review and provide staffing recommendations. Relevant to the discussion today, Matrix made the following staffing recommendations: Recommended increases: • 25 additional dedicated commissioned officers • 3 shared dedicated commissioned officers 1 1 Page • 2 civilian positions • Note: through this process, staff identified significant challenges obtaining consistent, timely data, and so recommend an additional civilian contract analyst. City Council has approved an initial phase of implementation to add ten additional dedicated new positions, account for the new shared lieutenant in the Office of Professional Standards hired in 2023, and authorized the contract analyst position. As part of the 2025 Budget Development process, Council changed the contract analyst position into a Public Safety Coordinator position. As approved by Council in 2025, the 10 new positions and one changed position for Phase I implementation consist of • Four Patrol Deputies • One Patrol Lieutenant • One Traffic Deputy • One Homeless Services Deputy • Two Spokane Valley Investigative Unit Detectives • One Spokane Valley Investigative Unit Sergeant • Changing one existing Patrol Sergeant to Patrol Lieutenant The Public Safety Committee has been discussing Phase II and is presenting its identified phase II recommendation today. Importantly, these positions would be recommended for the next phase, if funding were identified. After review and discussion, the Public Safety Committee, at the recommendation of Chief Ellis and staff, recommend the following for Phase II: • Four Patrol Deputies • One School Resource Officer • One shared Sexual Assault Detective • One Behavioral Health Deputy (which would be part of a co -deploy team with a behavioral health specialist) These positions allow the City to address areas of concern indicated through the community outreach while also providing fiscal responsibility through the use of shared costs with partners (for the school resource officer) and grants (for the Behavioral Health co -deploy team). Central Valley, West Valley, and East Valley School Districts have agreements with Spokane County to pay a portion of the costs for school resource officers and so the City will pay a portion of the total costs for such officers. The Behavioral Health Deputy will be funded through a grant from the State. Finally, the Sexual Assault Detective is a shared position and the City only pays for the share of costs associated with work within Spokane Valley. Historically, the shared portion is approximately 50%. Costs Preliminary estimated costs for all seven positions are $1,038,503 in recurring costs and an additional $390,000 in one-time costs. These costs include initial salary amounts provided from the recently approved collective bargaining agreement. However, they make assumptions about shift differential and indirect costs that are likely to change once more information is obtained from Spokane County about the total impact of the collective bargaining agreement and resolution of the outstanding 2023 Law Enforcement reconciliation. Thus, these costs are very preliminary and subject to change. Cost estimates also include offsets for cost recovery for the amounts paid by the School Districts for the School Resource Officer based on 2023 actual revenues received and grant payments for the Behavioral Health Unit Deputy. 21 Page As discussed above, at this time, the City does not have the additional $1,038,503 in recurring revenue to pay for the Phase 11 officers. More discussion will occur at the workshop about possible revenue sources to fund Phase 11 and other increasing public safety costs. The City has established a Public Safety Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fund #503 to purchase police vehicles. The fund has $1,947,444 in budgeted fund balance at the end of 2025. Of this amount, $1 million is allocated for the purchase of vehicles for new positions while the $947k is to fund future replacement costs for vehicles purchased in prior years. Phase I called for vehicle purchases in the amount of $650k for the additional 10 officers in 2025. This would leave $350k available for Phase 11 nonrecurring vehicle costs, and an additional $40k would need to be identified for the balance. These positions will not require any additional improvements at the Spokane Valley Police Precinct beyond those already contemplated for the Phase I positions. As noted above, the Public Safety Committee does not recommend moving forward with implementing Phase II staffing until a funding source has been identified and agreed upon by the full City Council. OPTIONS: Discussion. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Estimated recurring costs for all positions for Phase II are $1,038,503. No revenues or funding source has been identified to fund such recurring expenditures. Estimated one-time costs for Phase II are $390,000. The Public Safety Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fund #503 has $350,000 available that could be used for vehicle purchases. The remaining $40,000 would need to be identified. No costs are anticipated at the Spokane Valley Police Precinct. STAFF CONTACT: Erik Lamb, Deputy City Manager; Dave Ellis, Spokane Valley Police Chief; Morgan Koudelka, Sr. Administrative Analyst. ATTACHMENTS: Spokane Valley Police Staff Phase II Cost Estimate 31 Page N O m O 'O O ti m 0 uO O O M u O a O M a O N O C N o uo O O a .--I N O ao V co m O c") co N v o � 0 C 0 C 0 o C c 0 o c vS o o vS o o N o M M o 01 M 01 M O R y O N y C V3 EA EA EA V3 !!T V3 EA !!T !!T yxj y 0 0 0 0 w O Ci Ci Ci O O O O y V Lo O O Lo o o F N i M M 6C Vi fA fA fA Vi fA Vi fA fA fA O O N i O EA EA EA EA V3 fA V3 EA fA fA N N h of O V of N M C N O O M u a O M Lf co Lo n o M T co .--I rl N N u� M W M 41 awl `-' awl 76 O ~ EA EA EA EA V3 fA V3 EA fA fA y m n n c') c') N I� N n C Vi fA fA fA Vi fA Vi fA fA fA Loco o V m m M N y O lh 0 V rl e M ' rl a M i T O N O w N w N C y N d-7 fA fA fA Vi fA Vi fA fA fA y C O O O O a O N N x uo uo Lo '-I rl u� lA N W LL � i EA EA EA EA V3 fA V3 EA fA fA N N N V V V '--I O a of N L' M ON1 a0 uI lA IN M OC co co co .--I m co ~ r, `. O M O y c) r, O h M (O � m of Ih O t0 uq f0 I, f0 lA 01 - m of N m O I N co C M uo M . ati N M I, fA :iT N O o N O h '� L '-I N O uo uo of a0 N V "It N O Vi fA fA fA Vi fA Vi fA 4a 4a v n n v n v v ao o V M�NM cc M MM O a m m W� m 1� N cq a H Vi fA fA fA Vi tlT Vi b, tlT to co O N m� r M o 0 N p O M y� N N O y O O _ yO (0 O f6 O +L- f6 U y y O D U 2 0 U 0 2 c,: O O E 0 0 O O N 0 0 o m U o °O m o O m m U m cLi aLi axi cn a a m w H cLi o wm H c F C Breakdown of Indirect Costs per Officer Training Countywide General Administration Equipment and Vehicle Depreciation Fleet Services Professional Standards Facilities Maintenance Accrued Leave Total Breakdown of Countywide General ISD Gen Fund Support Human Resources Civil Service CAD RMS Project Admin Srvcs - General Treasurer - Cashiering Clerk of the Board & Public Communications Central Services Financial Assistance Admin Purchasing General Campus Security and Employee ID Auditors Financial Services- General Treasurer - Finance Steam Plant Incoming Idle Capacity State Auditor Total $ 21,576.04 40.0% $ 12,047.92 22.3% $ 9,627.34 17.8% $ 6,907.81 12.8% $ 3,869.68 7.2% $ 1,444.32 2.7% $ 210.37 0.4% $ (1,703.97) -3.2% $ 53,979.50 100.0% $ 4,640.35 38.5% $ 4,239.60 35.2% $ 756.57 6.3% $ 738.15 6.1% $ 492.50 4.1% $ 482.22 4.0% $ 215.08 1.8% $ 132.23 1.1% $ 128.37 1.1% $ 68.07 0.6% $ 50.84 0.4% $ 35.26 0.3% $ 25.09 0.2% $ 22.85 0.2% $ 14.20 0.1% $ 12,041.39 100.0% w O N O CN cu Z O Q . C G O V LL O LU U) O tea/ I.L a. N cc O CL N O t N N N O N N c� C.) _O i N t O cc N c O cc CL O CL i cc .E .N t N cc N c O t N cc .v cc O O J N cc d cc .O t� as O t .� ,+��+ CL U) Q N N d cc 0 0 U N N E a O m i a U U O v cc N •� cc •O N N N cc N O v CL C O 0 C N N O Q d i N AS 0 cn a0+ t� N N cc � d O U v cc >+ E N 0 v � N AW x A c� � W = i 0 O ': 0 m N O > V Q A E W 0 0 O CL 0 N 0 t W O .0 AS V 0 N a00 J aa- N •� .-. 0 N 0 0 a Q a `c U) — o OE c� LL cc •i Z d N � N N Q � ate.+ �t� • cc N _N N cc A N t 0 t cc N O O cc N t� i N d i O N N N N i .cc N t O 0 E O N N N .E m x as O 0 N t H N cc N cc O CL O d Q O 0 N N N i t O t cc N .I (1) U) (1) 0 0 CL cc CL O N cc N i� V O O N N }+ 41 0) O V m - W. U 40 O N J. C C C C C C C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C C C C C C Ln O Ln O Ln O Ln M M N N �q rl In In In In qj,)- qj,)- qj,)- Ln N O N V N O N M N O N N N O N rl N O N O N O N 0) rl O N W O N n e-0 O N w 0 N Lf) O N V 0 N M rl O N N e-0 O e-0 N O 0 N O 0 N 00 O O N n O O N w O O N N O O N V O O N o � m L N d V M O lD N N �--� L al .� Ln O O It O Q O N LL U u m w O O O �O `� rl O O l.D O N Ln CCD � U �M-I m F, w L c Q O Q- O to d •tA " n N N lD � lD M M DO N O .--i ,��s'�f,f E E O U C A p L ai V Ln M —i O M N M _ E O U N i Q U d 0 O^ O� O Y � Uf � Uf Uf LA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O � L L m ai a Q- O L ai d v W r, N M W W O O I, N N O M I- O M m M —1 I, 'It N lD N LA N M M M M M Q m U al a if� if� if� if� if� i/)- i/)- mLn t lD ZY lD I, L�j N Lf1 00 N i--1 ll i--1 'O y —1 00 —1 O lD M M to ' 00 � 00 o1 � m a N OL OM m N M M M O N C O O O O O O O O O C000 000 000 N O O O Ol I� lD Q �q:e-I a T UJ al 4' �: to �OiD C7 75 L m OOa v O f0 E aJ O -O �[ = Y al w � to Li } ci m Y Q � a tCL 'Q G � V L- W M cc M r-I N r-I N r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I Vl- l Vl- l Vl- l Vl- l Vl- l Vl- l Vl- l-Ln M N O Ic* r- O r- I� lD O m M O m r-I Ol M O w lD lD N M r-I O r-I fa 00 w m O lD M W O M O O O O O r-I M lD lD r-I lD r-I q4 M r-I r-I M M M cc X m 2 1 in. I in. I in. I in. I in. I in. I in. X M r-I O � r*_ O lD m lD O m N O w r-I m m O N N w� w m O m lD m N M w O O lD 00 00 Ol N r-I 00 � Q O m M r-I M I� m G N r-I r-I N r-I N i a� ._ ca V — mop + a--i -j ca w L L Z W LU U/ 0 LL Z LU Q J LL N0 0 cn i I Q LU U; O L W � N U � � • � ca ' Qa o C O (1) %4-- O-0 O L L Q (D o U) Q L -W Q - �~ L M 0 N Lo — N N V N .- N .� . U) Q V Q — Qi L � - Q 0 E 7w L +� O 0 0.0 v . mO— mE cam CD ++mm O L O � i L Qitn N N N V � •L > > 0 �� v O N O O •� > E Mte � O ca E N 0 O •� E N > O N.N Cl) % •0 — N 0 Q U) Z O O Z N W o W L cu C Q U) Z F- O U 6' x 0 >, > Q Q ~ a) a ~ U) ~ Z 0- 0� oa 0 �. o — QL 0�a)a� U)H �= 0.a o� Eto LLw ZZW�0Xa� Wo OC W ��F o �U Hm>�cn� m0 O> cu W J > a a) ca 2 Cl) ca FU ccu c H > ca a) ca cu W oo � > LL N ca ca o a c >co -a aca � ca LU ca 6cU � X o H J J C: Q H ca J m o ccu OC UScu>, W �� acu Jo 0 ��- X- —' a) � a) 4-0 ca o Q o 0 a�m> C� �> >z N (u W 1- 00 N (u N cu L Q L 0 cu Q cu a 0 Q O C 0 0 L O') 0 O 0 I a)O O X O cu �� :3 m a)c f� Cl) N cu N L- � X -a+� c L — O !Q c >� > __ > a)O a)> cn E t V- L U C: (a :3 cu Q. � ' O ® C f� � U N >' _N C: a) U Y� i \ cu E LM =Q� UU V C� 0 . a) cu 00 6} a) J L � a) x cu 4-0 L- J a) O L Q O W C) o O o J oo 0 o O Cl) o C6, c� o O }' T rn � °� O ti o cu � o is a) ��'� � � Fu Q cu > a) > o oQL cu a) _ �— o >T'E > ch4 a) N � Lo a) N � a) O { q W " a) � CU � — E a) O = a) a) a) Ii > .2 cu cu � U a) _ O w a) a) U L L LM _ L CU CU t� 0 . Ai =3 C: a a� L O }' AW o U . _ = Cl)m J � L O > o J x � N O, m O �••+ i O 0 (u O c O s a m Q L w O cn ai cu O ■� L }i _� O L C CL V � L •� L D 4-0 w + E a S C • N x O C: ++ cu 4-0 N L � CL W 4-0 00=. O 0 IM a� V— MA L U Q U m O O N N U N • W cu 0 O L QL cu L- a) O 0) a CO N = O O ^ a) -a cn 4-0 > C: 0 N G� >, O iN U O4-0 -C cn X_ L L� O > � N ca — O U Q O E i O C: O a) (a O Cl c > EL — a) a) oL a) c C_ as (n X O L� 0)O U � > a) -a Cl) O m c: Q ++ > ca O i O p Q in a) -a 0 O G� O >, � Q cn N cn LEE 0) C o E O Q oL a) O O �I ol L E cn H O' O — cn t }I ; O � _ cu a) � � > O � J — = O N L L (a O ->,+� _ O ' (a }' (a cn Q L to +-i to _ 0 cn > a) a) O N co U a) N ca O > CL > 0 ca L� a ) CU O C L Cl) CL O cn � O > O CL i ca O 0 O a) E Q E U a) (a >+ N c a) cn L N � >, > L > x 'O c N 0 Q p 0 U cn cn O U � E }i -W cn N 0 0 (a 0 a) a) a)O as L C eg- a) a) c: cr E > o 5 o -a ca a L C O � O Q I L -0 L a) Q cn CU CU a- CO o `t ti 14-0 J a O CL O 14-0 421� .E J LL A a J W H z W z r� w tL d W W J Z 7� (sasodind uoileatsnIll aoj pajeaa6bexa ale3s) finaj jo ]unouuy cello(] le;ol ■ 0 14-0 L� J a 0 CL 0 14-0 L� J H LLLU J J J Z W z W CL LU 3 [sasodind uolleJlsnlll jol paleja66exa aleos] AAal iO }UnOWV AIJOC7 Ie;a1 ■ ■ N U) o +�-+ •- op ' U M x T cn . V m 4— Q cn 0N N O 0 T (6 0 � N O 70 }, O M Q cn N M p O Cr) m 0 � C/) > N OU cn — = � OE 0 cn O N X o � O N � W m Cfl Lo -0 cn N J cn � � � m U tf} N .� O Q 0 O � cn > " a) o � �M �-r a)._ .< M Lcn �= � o o �� om U o0 M CD-� o �cq LU M c- U A-Z o .. N LL. >, O 0 o cn cn Efj- cn a 70 _ (%� Q }' cn � U U X a)a)M U cn � . >_ COS O }' >, N cn 0 :3 J 'U cn O � TN-U � O U E }' O }' O m a)U Z U � U x U U w cch . a)m Q N O ■� U OU c�i� T � L � m ■O� � a)L O T _O � � x Co a) a) -M c L U _ cn c- E a) � � U � X a) o co v U a)-0 o C: x a)CO � O a)� N C%) M M O U � L O c? O_ V O cn E }' m 0) U N N O ._ L — s= U _ x 0 O O N O o U N o � -C V- a--Q a) � C L M 0 •- � •V 0 N O o m O O (fl L E Cle) Co C/) a--' O O a)O ■ 4-5M �_ C � T N N 7 O a) 0 Q Co D a) v =3 m E L > a) -0 N cn O O 1. 0 •- O c a)Co 0 � a) a) O N •V O co O Q }' -0 � s= cn — N 0-L O O N N Q > Q cn ono cc L O O cu Y ti E L cn _W COcn m co N 0 N o N C M � � O O N Cfl M �J �c^u VJ O J U_ L O -4--+ .C/) 2 0 E L 0 cn O Cfl T- I.L ^O ♦ii V 1 O Z 0 70 0 70 a) C�/ Q U) L.I. T O O 0o M N O N L co 2 U C ui a� Q c E E 0 U h c� c Q h N N co N 0 Y 0 co N L 0 U) 0 O CD 1'. O N 1� I* O CD O W N N � N W O CD I* W) Oo ER ER N CD CD O W) 1� V 00 M M O LC� oo N w M O � ER ER O O T- N CD O N w ti co co T- O W) O N O W O CD CD ER ER W) co co W) N Oo N Oo O N CD O Q M tD O 1� W) N Cl) O N N � ER ER CD M O co 1* N 1* W) M W) N O T- O y 1� W) M cm co Gi ER ER m W) M M N �+ I* O ti CD 1� 1l N O T- N CD 1� 1* CD N W) 1� O O O co N T � N o .V Q W +�+ w co z co co co co o co E (n n ^` L a) C U_ 4-00 O L a) a cu zz CU cu > cn O L 0 O (a (a L > CU Q- L Q O 4-0O (a L 4O �a) Q a) X >, a) (u O (a O a)0 Upa) oOi O O a)a) L cn �--' Q cfl > a) Z Z X a) a)(u > 0 .� W W CO 2 cm N k 2 $ E k k d \ I � ems\ 0\ a 2 § © § �C%l�n e ®tee® " 2' 2 2 ° § @ � § k d 2 B 2 § Cc / Cc$/§2 a- U) >§§f f §_ k ° ' ) k § / J e co co :e 26464 RRe 000 tak U)Cc 6423 222 �§ ��� /kk k\ §§§ "� �qe ; 000 � k & k o _ \/k8 / §R0 cc /� \ � § § / E Cc »» 2 x 2 cc / 2 2 < 7 �L \ 0 \ �\ 7\ ° \0 0> u> ƒ x cc I 2 I I � §f8 §fU) §.2 cc cc08 k 2 � 002 00- om k k k > x LU W a) i 4-- 0 N E O U cn O CD U cn O N Q M T ■cn O T O N cn > a) U a) O Q cn a)O � N m N EL L O O C: N O C: 3Z a) cn E 'L _O ate-+ Q U E N � L O (6 E N U M cn N M 0-cn N >' c CD _N m O T O O M ZZ _N Q (6 � c U m O N m cn M > O 0 _N O L � .Fn Q X O M F _ � O cn N _O Q E N O E cn CDL Z N cn cn O M C N L m O EL a) a)- L aj cn CD M1 ■ 2 TO 0 0 0 U O m O 06 m N O E m U) cn Q Q m O N cn (u a) O (a (a a) O Q L Q a+� O cu O U_ p O L O U? L� O a) O X Q 0 X x N 4-0 -a Cl)a) V/ O QL p o Q (a O Q. a) CL C: C: a) Cl) Cl) 0) u =3 O =3 O ♦..+ O Cl) 2 •— c: a) a) cu — � 0 � vi.Ln-a °� E o -a 0 O -0�� � -5 E Q Q Q O CU X W . . . . . cn a) cn Q L Q O _cu 0) N L 0 L O cn a) U cn a) cn cn a) U a) to U E LL cn Cn coca C�n���E 0 E L) L cu LJ U C O U O -0'f >+ m o .O Z 'E Y C O - m O N > O O O N E m aO'' N co Cl) O i6> TQ a) U) a) O m E O m a) Q m O E m O Q ~ a) -OU O i6 C� C O m N a) -O C Q m> Q vOi 0 O 7 in U (06 O N vOi O ) O >, m> a) E m Q } L a) a) > N m O O C +O-'— —U i Q N O U m m a) O O O p 7 L Q N O N U) +`� T 7 Q `m �° o �' ai m `m o m m � n U c U m E m e m UC '0 O U) a) c U) LL E a)U) O a > > z U ~ a) a) M C cc N a0 lD C O a) O ++ 222 64 64 64 co C%l cc O y0 N C O CD(DL +0+0+0 U) U)C O 64 •E a)� ma O �� Efl64� a)Cc M N64 � .. cc OOO �Mle '0 'a 7 i Efl co C L4 N I* LO 64 64 64 O N U) •� '++ \ \ \ cc R •L a) U) N M �' > O O O y J O O O N > O O > > U m O m O m O �_ a O 6q N a) L O O fn U o L O V LO O Q 7 O N m x L j O EA EA O m O O U m E U O O a) U) C O O) O O U) C O) LO O a) o C m m 0 .0 (h L�j N a) co O p m O EA N V LL p a) O) O —O " x O >, C O O O o .. O O> C x N}} Q Q C m a) C) O 00 x O) N o a) U ° o > O N O a m 6q Q U _0 O (6 00 Q N -O > N 0-)> Q _0 o U O o * LO O o LO o 6) LO o 0 � p (O p EA = c m>> I O m c p I O p L > I I I I c- > O U > m m O > o> U> U U _0 7L- 7L- c m - m - L�= x O a) m am ) m m x LL x m N x m m m .. c � .. m m m J cn� T o. 0 o.� o. 0 0 m p c)� — m n J m n� min 06H tf �j � 00 m o0 � 00� u) a) u) O Cl) > ~ CO LJ Z) n m 00010 Spokane ,,,;OojFVa11ey 10210 E Sprague Avenue ♦Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5240 1 Fax: (509) 720-5075 ♦ permitcenter&spokanevalleywa.gov Memorandum Date: 3/4/2025 To: Budget Workshop Re: 2025 Fee Resolution Proposals Staff has evaluated several permits issued by Building, Planning, and Engineering Departments and have identified potential permit fee updates to the current Master Fee Schedule for City Council consideration. The fee types and amounts, organized by the department/division, are included in the presentation. ENGINEERING Grading Permits and Right -Of -Way (ROW) Permits: Staff evaluated the various engineering permits that the City issues for work in private property and the public right away. In recent years, the City has received an increase in the number of major ROW permits such as utility work, fiber installation, etc. Current staff does not have capacity to properly inspect all of the requested permits. In 2023 and 2024, the City hired a consultant to provide inspection assistance. In 2024, the contract amount was $135,000. Despite having consultant support, the City had to meter permit issuance in the fall of 2024 as there was no capacity to properly inspect the work of the submitted permits. Staff will be presenting fee options for council consideration that could generate additional review to hire an additional ROW Inspector. The City issues an engineering grading permit and an engineering grading review permit for private development work including commercial development and land divisions such as long plats, short plats and binding site plans. Although neighboring jurisdictions have similar permits and fees, they also require additional permits or charge the developer an hourly rate for the various engineering documents requiring approval or inspections. For example, the City of Spokane has a stormwater review fee that is based on the number of lots or complexity of the drainage system and an inspection fee that is based on the valuation of the work. Spokane charges an hourly rate for inspections and engineering reviews. Spokane County also charges a flat fee for land divisions in addition to the planning land division fees. Staff will present potential fee increases for the engineering grading permits and also potential new fees that could be assessed for developments that require certain inspections or reviews which could include the following: Warranty Inspection $138 Construction Inspection/Certification $345 11 P a g e 2025 Master Fee Schedule Update Proposal — Supporting Documents Pre -Construction Meeting $138 Traffic Review - within impact fee area $69 Traffic Review — not within an impact fee — Traffic Generation & Demand Letter $138 Traffic Review - Traffic Impact Analysis required $276 PLANNING Potential permit fees were selected to remain reasonable for applicants while considering actual cost and aligning more closely with neighboring jurisdictions. A few simplifications were recommended, including reducing the number of short -plat fees based on the number of lots (going from three categories to one) and eliminating the Single Dwelling SEPA fee. (Single Dwelling developments are exempt from SEPA unless there are other project actions that are not exempt and require review. In that case, the regular SEPA fee would be charged.) A potential new fee could be added to provide for review and determination if projects meet the criteria in the Planned Action Ordinance area. BUSINESS LICENSING The general business license fee has not been updated since 2019 when it was increased from $15 to $25. The general business licenses are processed through the Washington State Department of Revenue (DOR). Per the City's agreement with DOR, they do not charge the City for their services, however; a $50.00 non-refundable business license application processing fee is applied to each application received and processed. Staff will present three potential revisions to the business license fee for council consideration ($50, $75, and $100) and the potential revenue that could be generated. BUILDING Minor revisions to the building permits could include an increase of various permit fee types which currently are lower than the adopted hourly rate of $69, including demolition permits and the plumbing and mechanical permit base fee for a standalone permit (i.e. plumbing or mechanical work not associated with a building permit). Council could also consider adopting a technology surcharge for building permits. Other permit -issuing jurisdictions and agencies include a technology or similar fee to offset the cost of permit tracking software licensing and maintenance of both internal permit database and the outward -facing permit portal. A $10 technology surcharge per building permit would offset the annual cost for SmartGov software licensing. 2 1 P a g e 2025 Master Fee Schedule Update Proposal — Supporting Documents LU �o LU LU co LU Lu E LL a a� v .i U Lo O � N uj a / _ m E 3 2 � 0 \ / c m E 0 3 � m E / 3 E 0 o 0 g � _ 70. 3 7 / 0- U � .\ % ƒ L� o cl ƒ 70 ƒ > E "0 3 U) / o 0- m 2' 70 > 0 \ 3 E / E 1 E E S cl 0- q = 7 > \ _ \ 0 @ 0 70 /% 70 v E 3 0- cc 0- E 70 o \ .\ \ > 2 � E m- E E E 7 = _ 7 . 2 0 ƒ m cc£ 2 70 7 \ >cc3 / \ (D 2 \ \ \ G\ fi \ o 2 0- .G n: R 0 o C.)I_= 0 N O ƒ 0 i 70 70 70 / _ > \70E 7 0 / 0 = 3 = cl k � / c % 2 y E« z U .3 \« 0 3 70 m 7 o . . . . . . . . . I C E O U ƒ U .= 0 0� 0 0 to W W LL z W W z z W N cc i N O t� Z N O O d CL 0 cc cn d i= E N 0 c Q d O U cc d Q N cn .� cn O Q N O Q i }, 0 W N O W O N 0 _0 O 0 LL N co M 0 Clq O 0 �_ .N i N 0 3: i U LO V N N - N N a0 . i N O Cll 0 N Q cc O N .2 co CM > CL C W N o > cco o cc a O .E O i U �} }, O N N O m 0 cc O p p X Co CB E i N N Q) .0 70 +.� 0 O d N � > N N • 0 2i � cc Cr= H W W LL F W 1�Cl- 5 Omu -Fu IJi V b � N � N ' r 21 3 � j5 �r u] f9 [�9 tIi i!Y to 44 � r O � Q � V a a a a � r-? � co � Sr CO a o� o co as cat, u�-] u5 es � m m a' � n Z N N U m V � � E 3 a i a E U z a a a as aaaa' � co o o cv ni v CD Ir ao N ❑} r �r €v — �r r cQ r 0? qM en r a' m' of 6 mc� � ni' m ni' °° us _ro LrD " � u -U)- EL c3o r Ln cQ M L.CD m w co CD;r � r r v v w LL = 61�1 n cu 0 19 a o Ir 'j- o nr o cv = m c cc ci' ffx t79 U) H9 b"). ti9 ffi n U m ev eD cv co cv as CCD ro ,zr r cv r cv CO I'llr cu c na r � r a cv a cli ur cv LfD r ace LCD M LfD r qM M cv cv co m r cv CID fn E a t� a a E cl cl �_ Ir m c CD0] M Q s} 0 0 d} -0 ❑ u _�} O O [i5 —Cl c L LCD ti7— ---� S 70 L � ❑ > w .L-i rye cn -0 -0 _ _ ❑ ❑ ❑ w 0.} U U 0 CD CD 0 0 C C 7 > cm cm 0 0 c 0 f5m ��m} , ,�mayy N ca W 0 Z _ CL 0 0 o N W U � _ W 70 Q L 0 Z .7Ej N N N 1 (U O m W CU � 0 4-1 U U) 0 CU4-1 O m a) O U p Q �_ � U N N L CM O U U U 70 O a-E — N N (U 70 U_ c O N N Q co N cn O �cn > O Q 'V Q O N N U i (B 0 U a cn U L _N E U O U N 0 P` T a N `Cr SO Jw cm ca IL W w N U Z Q Y L O 0 O 0 cmcm 0 CD 0 CD CD CD o G N W N N C12 U3 to co to m N co to � LL Qi N a� cc C, C Y 6 N � N+ C N++ U J o o C7 o C] o� O n Q W � y0 fAy ou>�T'inUc7Y�CD CD s J o} <" C) c`yo "' 23r-ooCDoo s, `v O to U tp, bq O � C_ 7 �= o + v 0 + v 0 + v 0 + v 0 + v o v +cl O i N W R pJl Q} R N N R u] R Vi LQj77 R N QQ33 - N tll O N t3] Q7 C7 6y C C7 Gy C P7 6S Q7 M cg C 47 [' 7 C53 c co }� x O R R R R ti R O N }J U N of f#3 of EA [a9 03 EFi wf l EA O :� �+cc Z M1 N N _ O co cc 7 � f6 C fJ4 C cn ti ifi C 61k L U w 'o + .o L1 + .� t1 + ., U + .� L1 + .� L1 + .o [1 ccr y :E T; O W Q V c14 cN — —S � N EA 69 b9 t9 EA t9 cc a- N W Cc =x� cn Q O a7 O 0 O W O Q O o O O V �o V O � p V O a O cc (L N m �V 7 6 p '+� V O L" V o L" V O (B O cQ 49 + SCD®cvo + CD N� + a� i O + A cod V emQ CD+ [gyp CJ O C7 O' cD c > a--+ y� Q U ® CmCqq cm(gg ate-+ fn i O Qi d' [r9 Hsi EA �9 a? L7 aO Co O rD CD 6 w Y > > o a cn m o = 6 N [i M CJ clj o L c Cc w m O rn LID© tAl a�U (B O N (B C cB N r � co N (B — U o C) C� o Q cc N n O L:)co to L7 [j CD cv � +_ � OcD cD 0 Q a o U co (n 6 C? CD �' � O fti r- M N a N N to So 90 i:7 e? N► to 40 to w tf] Z >. O LU J CL J O W LLI Z Q Cn CD G O O C). Y � M to V> � Q � w to w `? L.L N Cn LO cc Y C CD Ri u N Q C) a� —L w CD cn � cn r+ CD cn ++ cn T CDi T+ CD' tiiA U7 cn UJ � CD ^ � O .Cn y �o L L o �o L O cNnbq �n �n � u� b Os 0 0 J 69 i Lf) O t t t s O a a L L L L L L L 4--+ O � o a 0 d Q cu 110, r Q r a-- LO Cy cn _ N C Lli _ N t u� _ C"i U� _ CV C Lq _ C"i C Un _ C"i U�— Cn s[ 0 cc cc - ❑ 9 'j- co co Y cQ cQ cQ [Q 'j- (/� f1�3 ER tf3 U 3 Vi fi�9 ffi � CB � 0001, o CD C7 0 O W d m. 'X Y ❑ 2 m C� 4] 6 CD ❑ CD o Cn + N ctz lJl ILLL C) m C7 6 C] L.6 lC] 4] f� 7 LCD W to Q O C1) .� ❑ hl CV C 5 ❑ 7 yg ❑ ❑ N i w Cf3 [fr t3% +CD } + 0 0 co 2 M 0, Go o cc Z N > + J rr 2) ate-+ Cn CD CD O N 2 L iB 0 L � d] L C] cm Y Cf3 !f3 69 } t ] t U Cc IW6t ❑ c 4--+ O O co #� ccate-+ a-=+ &] cc 0 cc Cc O CB C � (LS _ N =3 cc o U Q C� Q cc C) CD C) 0 ❑ 0+�� CD �, 0 0 [7 C7 o p cc p O C7 C= CD CD • C) C7 C7 C� 6, Cam' CD n cn CD CD cn CD un cv W Z LU `LU �'" F LU 0 V, G LU 0 a LU Z 0 0 0 W W LL H W CL •� o - t� cc M E�4 i CC � •v1 N 00 W ,L 6'; o W ZCL 3 3 a H •� 4-0 •� � � O � � N M W • ~ I FBI W 1-0 0 w to W W LL Q z z z Q J am el i 5 4 {} U R7 9} C C CL - J o Cl) � a M y � q7 } + + U) L'} t } J CDg a kn Lrn r'+ Sn N � b} 3 6 06 06 IXi 1+ C = co Cy C1 CV CV _ O 1y tv C C4 64 C4 N3 C4 LID Q} q} M 47 + + + + u% f-- . CD N L'o R Gj d 1� Leo OL} N r M M r ® CV CV co CV L# 64' (lj S.i} G7 d N 69 CIAM N C 8 I} L g a Q h. � O d �n M t_n CV FQ- M M Q} M L'] N EA E9 Ef} 4C] U) L'} C O O QCD a CDCD 3 0 4r} CD u} CD CD CDCDLL CDa o + Lr} iV T •� CD C to M E19. a a7 d 0 7 47 C L.L + O Imo. 4i} fk ul M a 0 In O LDS a G7 LO csi Ln Lr} a a r QS r.� r co L ro M m o on R7 kn r a LO M r M M a 47 M CN 69 EF7 L bs c T � O O R% LO O Z; rC3 CD d C + + co N CO G} r N M r UP. L17 CD LO 6�9 CD Ln O y� V W V C Ln W V1 T p LO J O k E 6 z 0 R] m +� J oy LU Lm LD CL C LO rL a- a- W J 0J CC C M m C i=aii 0 c V Vl 47 Jima- Ll �-i -ia� � W LU LU LL 0 z br— to W W LL W N z W u W N z W u N N W Z N m LO 69 N d Q cc O cc Z r 0 Clq LO N 69 LO V- 69 E L� N Ac i 0 2 O 0 Q W W LL Lid 0 z LU u J z a � _ Ln N cli LL LL N i7 gL tfl- 6 N ial J al of 3 O u al _ m C. Z (n 0 aj ui Q oai N d 41 O d tl � � E EE C C L C (n v r1 PV Ln ra C N 0 n- Ln i1} d d U, c O i+ A N Y N d 4 cu is i+ LL W } ❑ W *, p f] ii d o o C1 F E i .N C JL ++ E cu 91 CL C 6 C m L. -p � ,l -1 O LL Q rl � s1 z z 0 u N (n V W 417 W Ln W z V) D m O Q W W 0 J CL W ilS V u (n 4/] W z iY1 r+,s+,�ia it iflk i7} if)- 2 \ § § 7 \ In -.N LU 2 § L) � �,4 k — § z § tL / 2 o � kk Lu � 2 2 § G Co w m coi © / Q z � 2 ® § LU LU (A Lu � k § * k § 2 IL � G Lu � \ \ j ) \ § � § § Z @ 2 CL 'o cr k 2 j § N W W W J W U 0L N o W W LL O I.L W � CB � CQ G W �A Z �E v QD W Q W o W J 4-1 Z LL J _0 N � W L .N Z U C o 0 Q Z � a) W N WLL C� _O O D Q N W ~ U j = e = = W e 3 = O w 3 CL Q 91 dl LL b PS O = b+ _cv Q — o? r Q QI Q� L Q) L ai yg f9 m At cn CD (n CD d) to!). fA J 0 0 � o 0 N CLr 45 CL Y vi 47 � V3 ff3 dl _ Y cn V) cn r Q G5 to L) cn 0 to w t ¢ ¢ LL R Z z z 4, , _ w 3 L) a aj U- 0, aj aj o 1 in Q- _ D LL � LL -0 O 0 [J O cn � N �w h ll� W 0 O Z Q) O W LU LL Q J E H W E N W C) 2 O H am LU LU z 000* Spokane 49;000 y® Public Works Department Traffic Engineering Group 10210 E Sprague Avenue ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5000 ♦ Fax: (509) 720-5075 ♦ www.spokanevalleywa.gov Memorandum Date: March 4, 2025 To: Budget Workshop From: Jerremy Clark, PE, PTOE — Traffic Engineering Manager Re: Citywide Impact Fee Summary • What is a Transportation Impact Fee? (TIF) o Revised Code of Washington Section 82.02.050 authorizes cities planning under the GMA to impose impact fees for system improvements that are reasonably required to support and mitigate the impacts of new development. o Fees may not exceed a proportionate share of the costs of improvements o Fees cannot be used to fund existing deficiencies o TIF rate represents maximum a jurisdiction can charge to a developer, but jurisdictions can always elect to apply a lower fee o Fees are charged to new development, not existing residential or business structures. It is a means of having new development pay for its fair share of the costs of improvements that are required as a result of the new development. o Impact fees are assessed when building permits applications are submitted. Subdivisions and other land use actions do not trigger impact fees. o Impact fee programs should be reviewed and updated periodically to update project costs, project needs, etc. • How is a Transportation Impact Fee calculated? o Long range plans identify projects necessary to maintain acceptable traffic operations. o The cost of the projects are identified. If an existing deficiency exists, the cost to mitigate that existing deficiency is deducted from the project cost. Impact fees cannot be used to mitigate existing deficiencies, only deficiencies created by growth. o Current and future land -use is used to calculate trip growth through the network. o The portion of new trips that travel through an impact fee area is calculated. • Note, the new SRTMC Travel Demand Model was just released in late February 2025. As a result findings are labeled "Preliminary". Citywide Impact Fee Summary March 4, 2025 FAd Total Cost of Cost of Eligible Addressing Transportation Existing Projects Deficiency • Existing TIF Areas o South Barker Corridor $1,153 per PM peak hour trip o Mirabeau Subarea $ 698 per PM peak hour trip o North Pines Road Subarea $2,195 per PM peak hour trip o NIA-PAO (Not a TIF) $2,831 per PM peak hour trip • For areas not covered by TIF, developers conduct their own traffic analysis, and will only required to mitigate the impacts if their development causes or adds to the failure of existing traffic system. This can create an issue where the "last -in" development is responsible for mitigation and the mitigation is not sufficient to pay for the necessary improvements. • Options for a city-wide impact fee: o What would a program look like to capture fees from all development within the city that is impacting transportation infrastructure. o Almost 40% of future growth in Spokane Valley will occur outside established TIF areas o Option 1: Keep the existing TIF areas and create a large zone for the rest of the City o Option 2: Create one large TIF area for the entire City and eliminate the existing areas o Option 3: Create three TIF zones for the City and eliminate the existing areas • Option 3 is recommended. Given recent court findings regarding impact fees, the three -zone TIF program is recommended to maintain a nexus between impact fees and associated projects. Collected funds are spent in the area they were collected. • Revenue o Estimated fees are under revision to comply with the newly released SRTC Regional Travel Demand Model. Estimates are currently between $2,100-$4,000 per trip exclusive of right-of- way costs. o The three existing impact fee areas were established to collect approximately $7.5 Million in mitigation for capital projects over the life of the program. These three areas brought in $219,758 for 92 building permits in 2024. The Northeast Industrial Area Planned Action Ordinance (NIA-PAO) collected $237,804 in mitigation reimbursement in 2024. o A city-wide TIF program would be established to collect approximately $15 Million to $43 Million in mitigation over the life of the program. Assuming a similar ratio of annual versus lifetime revenue, this would be expected to generate $420k to $1.3 Million per year. The range in collection is based on fundable projects over time. Fees cannot be collected against projects that the City will not be funded to build. Tier 1, Tier 2 etc. \\svfsl\Public Folders\City ClerkWgenda Packets for Web\2025\2025, 03-04 Winter Workshop\8. 2025BudgetMemoCityTIFv3.docx Page 2 of 3 Citywide Impact Fee Summary March 4, 2025 1- New Citywide Zone Independent of Existing TIF Areas 2 -Con soli date into New Citywide TIF Area 3 -New Zone -Based TIF Area West 3 -New Zone -Based TIF Area Central 3- New Zone =- Based TIF Area East $3,700 $2,900 $1,100 $2,800 1 $2,200 $800 $4,100 $3,200 $200 $2,500 $2,200 $1,700 $2,100 $1,500 $400 (cost per PM peak hour trip) Table 2. Existing Fee Area Rates Pines TIF $2,195 Mirabeau TIF $698 5 Barker TIF $1,153 NIA-PAO (Not a TIF) $2,831 \\svfs1\Public Folders\City Clerk\Agenda Packets for Web\2025\2025, 03-04 Winter Workshop\8. 2025BudgetMemoCityTIFv3.docx Page 3 of 3 cn a) cn Q) LL. L C� G L 0 W U) U O c)LU I � O n F--- I n w w a- n LO N L N Ca O (-) CN m L E L HOCC a: c� N CL E cm W E 1w Cl rC LL L L •� V cr N O N O • (� O E •� L E •E •x 0 N_ U) O • L �-+ w CV CV ♦�+ N p N O +� • V ?r }� p > O > O ca CV Q N •V Q i O N N p E N CL a N a 0}' ��•' O O � &a t� a a Cl) L _ V L •w ~ w O 0. N •L w O 0 � ca � N N N Ja DC C7 Li U- H v A 1 1 A rC U t� LL � O Q a� N O Q V N O CL •w 0 E � LCL (1) Q 0) ■� ) Q 0 +� O L (1) U CL_ L CL ♦= CL _0 ca C 75 L O .N N O w � 5 L � N t/► � N O N E Eco A i 1 le L •� O V � � 0 •L L }r O J O H v U H l A i a O N U) U) V a� a� L Q L L CL CL _O O E O _0 aO%..00 Q >% L) L aLi L Q -W U) L) a O O v V (1) V � L � O Q U) (1) L 4� 0 U) LL A K--a V 0 Q i� L d O E E V V 5j, CL E ■ O 2 W � � rvo V V Q ' � ro EO � N — O N N LL O Q L E cn O � 0 W 1 5 C V O /G LL Ln N O-0 X� V -0 w L Q Q 0 U O o � �� O � V •O V Q N w � Cl.- O ro H IF Q a � c Q) V O> 0 Z3 N O 7 7 rO LL Q) Cl. U) cc L� d ry T E LL � n N @ x C t a u Y C _ N Sullivan Rc NO` I er Ra 5 Sullivan Rd S Progress Rd 5 Adams Rd Q m a t W w @ Q z Y • Q Q � � r w w w S M on.ld Rd 2- 2- 2 `2- W U 1 04 {ry L*1" CV #f} Oil- 0 za rr0' V °e CD 0 LL v LL ds ri Che V V 0. i V o mC CLC 4) Z— Z4— cl**-m LL CL E L 0 �L L 0 U L ML W PP -IA CO U) V U) � V �0 N Q CD L a aO V L V � 00 0 4) CO U) a �0 LL •U) V Fl N r M LL L 0 LU LU w E 0 L a� V E V V � L � L �C ♦, 0 t� _0 Q E 0 w o t 0 0 COT♦..' O .>%70 N > �..r 00 00. O LL �v •�� 04, O 0 0- E E 00 O�}'A, 4- O M woo 0i.� .0- V M O way �w �a> 0 L 0 a m �� E QLL O U) % }' L O t� LL U ca CL LL Q t cn 'x ca ♦= cn U) ca o (1) a� L }' }' O 'N N O 0 }' t N � '� O ♦-�+' ■ L �� CD � °' `� V -� L U) O a 4.0 ,� ~ LL N Z., �C O ' N L.L L 00 Q O N O 'x V Q 0 � fx •� v O I O O �� +� •- O m O O O CL Q Q Q O Q ca O O O H 0 i A 1 i A LL 14-0 U cc CL E 0 O L� L aO L O � N M % OQ0O 0. 0 O �e rj LL 14-0 U cc CL E 0 rj LL 14-0 U cc CL E 0 0 O L t/► 0 LL N L aj 0 Q ODU ca rj OWE\ CA u� 1 co M L t� V `0 i a i 0 a a i QL L O I �_ c^u` N � W i •� QL L' Cl) •� 0 U LL 0 M r\ (V 16-1 LO N s v a� m a O m W Q Y VI m J �p W s V Ol �2 V � r W = s C � � Y = M V � C _ O = W = 3 Y J M M � !6 W Vj co �_ 3 sv J ■ m O m s � O. 06l m N W O Y 3 0.VI O J Z � !6 Q LU O Z �6 iC C N Q M m O W LL_ N ~ 'aC LL_ M � Ll Y G _ m 00 N O V 3 co m 0) m LL 1 % ~ iaA C C ffp� M m C Q 0. O O W M i Y L 0.2 V Q m M i C Q O0. N Y O� N N C T O 0. a� tA c _ = I Y F >z . O , OWEN% V . `O i m N 06 l-4 LM W a L CL I N h M/ LL L.n M Q0 tt? s v >s Y 0 m W Q Y M J O C M N W t L (V V Ol V � W � •3 �r = L 01 s� y Y = M V � O = = W O = 0 Y J L !6 W Vj co 3 sv J Ovi m s�■ V4 a Y 93 . M _ R N W � O Y 3 fA 0 J Z ro Q M W +' O cc Z = w = Q Lr) M 0 W LLvi (V N ~ b4 = 'a LL_ G m a m- .0 N V c 3 LL 1 L H iaA C C o ML VOf 0 Q C. m O W O rn i ff�p = Y N (V 0 N Q tAt l0J 0 O . m M i N = Q O M H C N O� ON M N = O d4 0 V i Ol _ xIL H fV d4 i+ W 0. iC O W �5 LL- 7FD +� N p p M U) w N 0 0 m .x O Qa 0. 0 p +� � o ca N t O U) N i Clq ch a ♦p + O o N ca � .� p N O No . L -_ +� j N ++ m Q N O _Lo L ai }fir '� •� - L �+ •E cm a w N N E '� +�+ 0 L C •E_ V V Lo N N �_ N �O cr a Q O •� O E O p � � •� t� O O cm u-_ V • +� 0 CD•� +�+ +� O U) OHO^ p a " c.� _ N t� p > OO H ca � Q — C7 CL CL A 1 A 000* Spokane 49;000 y® Public Works Department Traffic Engineering Group 10210 E Sprague Avenue ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5000 ♦ Fax: (509) 720-5075 ♦ www.spokanevalleywa.gov Memorandum Date: March 4, 2025 To: Budget Workshop From: Jerremy Clark, PE, PTOE — Traffic Engineering Manager Re: School Zone Speed Limit Automated Enforcement Pilot Evaluation Introduction Staff completed an evaluation to assess the benefit of automated enforcement cameras (speed safety cameras, SSC) at school zones in Spokane Valley. The primary benefit of SSC installations is the reduction of speed violations in school zones or other areas with vulnerable road users and for revenue directed toward specific traffic safety improvements. This memo includes the following sections: • Data Collection • Citation and Revenue Estimates • Highlights From Other Jurisdictions • Summary Data Collection Through discussions with the Spokane Valley Police Department (SVPD), five school zones were selected in a pilot study to evaluate speeds. The schools were recommended based on police officer experience and issuance of citations during school arrival or dismissal times. The schools were identified in the following ranking: 1. Centennial Middle School; Broadway Avenue between Ella Road and Park Road 2. University High School; 32" d Avenue between Pines Road and Woodruff Road 3. Ponderosa Elementary School; Woodruff Road north of Cimmaron Drive Bowdish Middle School/Oaks Academy; Bowdish Road between 20t1' Avenue and 22" dAvenue Riverbend Elementary School; Mission Avenue between Manifold Lane and Long Road Each of these school zones has a school zone flashing beacon (SZFB) except for University High School. The beacons are activated during the specific arrival and departure times (adjusted annually) for each school. University High School has a school zone with a generalized time frame that covers all schools in the City (see image to the right), resulting in a longer school zone enforcement period than those with flashing beacons. SCHOOL DAY 7:30 -10:00 2:15 - 3:45 School Zone Speed Limit Automated Enforcement Pilot Evaluation March 4, 2025 Given the availability of reasonable weather conditions, vehicular speeds and volumes (15 min increments) were collected at these schools on January 281h 29th and 301h under seasonably cold conditions without precipitation or ice. Citation and Revenue Estimates The speed data for each location with a SZFB was evaluated during the time periods with active SZFB operations to the closest 15-minute period. These times are adjusted for Thursday or Friday late start schedules. The data for University High School was evaluated during school zone time restrictions and bell schedule arrival and departure time periods. Speeding vehicles were considered as a violation if exceeding the speed limit by more than 5 miles per hour (mph). For a 20 mph school zone, this includes all vehicles exceeding 26 mph. As summarized in Table 1 below, the highest violation rates were observed at Centennial Middle School along Broadway Avenue and Bowdish Middle School along Bowdish Road. The overall University High School violations during the posted school zone times exceeded 2,000 vehicles. However, as a school zone flashing beacon installation is required with automated enforcement cameras, only the 30 minutes before school and 30 minutes after school were considered for potential violations. Also of note is that no vehicles exceeding 25 mph were observed at Ponderosa Elementary during the stated collection window. Table 1. Estimated Violations School Potential Violations* (3 days) Total Volume Violation Percentage of Total Volume Centennial Middle School 855 1851 46.2% Bowdish Middle School 552 1295 42.6% University High School** 192 1494 12.9% Riverbend Elementary 64 1823 3.5% Ponderosa Elementary 0 128 0.0% **: No beacons present, *: Violations violations estimated based estimated based on posted arrival times on school zone flashing beacon schedules Based on the observed violations for three days in Table 1, an estimation of citations and possible revenue was completed and summarized in Table 2. These estimates are anchored on several assumptions that are highly conservative: • There are 20 school days per month based on 180 school days per year, individual school calendars were not used in the calculation • A 50% reduction in violations was assumed with the presence and advertisement of automated enforcement cameras • The maximum fine for a speed safety camera is set by state law at $145 and may be doubled to $290 for a school zone speed violation. For this evaluation, each fine was assumed at the maximum $290 for school zone violations \\svfsl\Public Folders\City Clerk\Agenda Packets for Web\2025\2025, 03-04 Winter Workshop\9. 2025BudgetMemoSchoolSpeedSafetyCamera. docx Page 2 of 4 School Zone Speed Limit Automated Enforcement Pilot Evaluation March 4, 2025 • As observed in Seattle, a 90% reduction in citations was estimated after drivers were issued their first citation (see Highlights from other Jurisdiction Programs section). A further 25% reduction was assumed based on appeals or lack of response from the driver. • The City of Spokane pays $5,000 per month to the camera system vendor for each installation. This evaluation assumed $6,000 per month. • The City of Kirkland actual revenues and administration costs from 2023 show expenditures after camera vendor contracts at 25% of gross citation revenues. This evaluation conservatively assumed administrative costs at 50% of gross revenues after vendor costs. As a result of these assumptions, SSC installation and operation would result in an estimated net revenue of approximately $49,000 per month total for the top three locations in the pilot evaluation. It is important to note that these citations and revenue estimates only include school zone violations. The cameras could generate additional revenue if used on a 24-hour basis with lower fines relative to posted speed limits outside of school zone speed limit times to further enforce speed through the school areas. Additionally, there are one-time initialization costs related to infrastructure installation that have not been captured by this estimate. Based on experience with similar equipment, costs for each installation are expected to be between $10,000-$15,000. As related to administrative costs, appropriately trained and certified civilian employees of a law enforcement agency or a public works or transportation department are permitted to review infractions detected through the use of an SSC in addition to review by law enforcement officers. Table 2. Estimated Citations and Revenue School Projected Violations for 1 Month Potential Citation Gross Monthly Revenue Net Monthly Revenue Expected to City Net Annual Revenue Expected to City Centennial Middle School 2850 $61,987.50 $27,993.75 $251,943.75 Bowdish Middle School 1840 $40,020.00 $17,010.00 $153,090.00 University High School 640 $13,920.00 $3,960.00 $35,640.00 Riverbend Elementary 213 $4,640.00 N/A N/A Ponderosa Elementary 0 $0.00 1 N/A IN/A (assumes 20 (assumes $290 school days; 50% fine, 90% reduction reduction in after 1st violation, violations with 25% reduction by enforcement) courts or appeal) $48,963.75 $440,673.75 (assumes $6kto (assumes 9 months camera vendor, peryear of then 50% to admin. automated costs, 50% enforcement) revenue) Per state law, 25% of the annual net revenues generated after four years are required to be allocated to a state fund. The uses of the net revenues are restricted to traffic safety activities as detailed below. Traffic safety activities related to construction and preservation projects and maintenance and operations purposes including, but not limited to, projects designed to implement the complete streets approach as defined in RCW 47.04.010, changes in physical infrastructure to reduce speeds through road design, and changes to improve \\svfsl\Public Folders\City Clerk\Agenda Packets for Web\2025\2025, 03-04 Winter Workshop\9. 2025BudgetMemoSchoolSpeedSafetyCamera. docx Page 3 of 4 School Zone Speed Limit Automated Enforcement Pilot Evaluation March 4, 2025 safety for active transportation users, including improvements to access and safety for road users with mobility, sight, or other disabilities; (House Bill2384) Additionally, a proportionate amount of these funds must be spent in disadvantaged areas. Highlights from other Jurisdiction Programs In 2023, the City of Spokane issued 23,839 citations through eight school zone automated enforcement locations (2023 Report). In 2024, the City of Lake Forest Park, Washington (population 13,006) issued 35,587 citations at four school zones associated with two schools (website). In 2023, the City of Kirkland, Washington issued 22,617 citations through eight school zone automated enforcement locations. In the same year, the City of Kirkland realized citation revenues of $2,718,519, expenditures of $908,060, and a reappropriation of $1,775,000 to transportation projects resulting in a net annual revenue of $35,460. Through the lifetime of their program, the City of Kirkland has realized $2,543,995 in net revenue after funding $2,253,157 in projects since 2019 (Q4-2023 Report). The City of Kirkland reports that 90% of drivers who receive a citation do not receive a second one and an overall reduction of 47% of speeding vehicles (WTSC SSC Readiness Guide). The City of Seattle reports that 90% of drivers who receive a citation do not receive a second one. It also reports a 67% reduction in citations issued by cameras since 2012 (WTSC SSC Readiness Guide). Speed is a contributing factor in 31% of fatal crashes in Washington. From 2014-2023, 21% of traffic fatalities in Washington were pedestrians or bicyclists. 90% of pedestrians are expected to survive a crash at or below 25 mph (WTSC SSC Readiness Guide). Summary This document summarizes an evaluation completed to assess the benefit of automated enforcement cameras (speed safety cameras, SSC) at school zones in Spokane Valley. Beyond the benefits observed from other jurisdictions in Washington and nation-wide, a local program is expected to generate revenue above operating costs when installed at viable locations. Of the five school zones that were studied, four were found to have significant violations during school zone speed limit reductions. However, based on the conservative assumptions stated herein, only three of the schools were estimated to be viable for installation and were estimated to result in a net revenue of approximately $49,000 per month. Any permanent installations would be independently verified by the camera vendor prior to initiation. The estimates provided in this document are limited to school zone flashing beacon and school arrival times only. By using the enforcement cameras during all hours of the day, the overall revenues are expected to be higher. \\svfsl\Public Folders\City Clerk\Agenda Packets for Web\2025\2025, 03-04 Winter Workshop\9. 2025BudgetMemoSchoolSpeedSafetyCamera. docx Page 4 of 4 ■ as cn w W (Do rn V! 13 N � � o o c- Cl) C.) U E U O L� LU Ca L 0 N C:Y) W U) U O ULU I � O n F--- I a- ww L _c Ca in L E O L N O N Ca 10 Cam• U CO CO V O O _N Q E U co rl 1s, Fl L� co co t©7 ` ,cc N O cc v tJ 'a � X E V ate+ v -I... 0 ca n •C O ♦•+ N 0 t > CD ?r. .N cc G� O O te a.+ v ate+ O � E U) c C .N -W CDv N o •� E .� i •E �+ c O E N O Q N C cc v L •-. tD � Cc Cc i p CD G� Cn cn � 0 � cc > E E c .v 2 N ccCD - v O m ca � }' •� is i � cc N cc N Ocn ♦, E 0 G •� E O a� Cn 0 CD Cc O ate.+ �+ cc o o E O co CD N ♦,,, O v C) cc 4) 0 H 2 •$ i U) A A ow 0 ' 0 W N cc L) CN 4- CL U)O � O Cc �•+ > U)U) (1) 0) CD 'N E c .E 0 Cc 0 CD E Cr 00 0 CcO Cn cc m .� N � >+ ,> v N N `0 x U)O 0 cc c o cc Cc t � C c O ♦>—, i E t� cc > Z O a� cc sz E n t� i H � O N CD Cc u E N 0 N.� i O cc cc U N i Cc � CD Cn t � cn •� O G� ECD . E ate.+ O O V v �� co co O c.i cc c .� d d O ai > d cc w AM .i Q .� ca O L (D a.+ d = ca LO E� = ycc y V O N E a� "- O CL U) % .o cc ++ O y CD" 70 O L �r .Qt o Q A a 4.0 � d Qa.+ jU N � � Er •i N �� ate.+ d ++ +� �2 E d ' -0 cc cc d O E c C .c.i L L .� O 00 d (�/► t_ C Cc 0'E ca O Vi E O OCc d_ m O L) L d 0� p O O — O — Om 0 cc V ♦-+ N ai O ai ♦�+ i c 0. O Q� a cc i w E ; (/) d 0 cc cc Q C Vi }' ca t +-' 0.0 cc co co L U) i N d ca V N N N = t�.� c � P �._ ace _�.�N � � i 1 0 0 0 0 U) U) V O L. a 0 O cc E E V co co N O t� N i t i cc L 0 t t N cc N 0 O ?r, cc V � cc cc _s Vi d N O .Q O N O t Q N U.) C M O = _O V U) O U) d U) 75 O o C 0 U) o cV 3 � N 71I cc A..r N t N N O t� cc N N U) O i 'N �t� O t� -0 W �E N L V O O � d E E cr � � d � O � Q O � O E := a cc v � � 1• :2 C > a� O Moo CL N � v o� U) N o� C� m '0 .i CL d � V •� = d 0 d M _ d �COL d i Q� 20 = Q._ d Q y0,, M O 0 _ O y + 0 = O = d N 0 0 V O i _ 00 E ate+ 0 = U U) cm MN >+ �O= +�+ � '> d 0 O) N M o s o E .0 o i/) A 0 0 cn ago t �� O cc C N LO N "C � M C da+ ■� C:�N O 4C� � O O cc N t0 ate+ 4) U) U) U') to V cc a.+ d M m cc _+ (� ■� V E +_ C-S> •v d Cc cc O N c N Q i O G� c O d o X O cc v ca c N d d � N d ■� E _M L? d •� L O 1` o 00 = c c G> cc N C Go `n m V > > •i d� > 'm N U)ca N~ ta O O le N -0•� O OMMM o N O U) cc CD U) C 75 U) Lt'� V � O i 0 i N U)cc O d .� O N d cc }� cc N Q cc cc of C a:+ i= d ,O > O d 0 ,O �SO O N •� d N U)U) � N O Y ti O 0 0 d t O O 0 N O 0 ,y N cc cc � d ca C C- C N N U O � a� c 0 M ,y �_ '� � c v) �cc c t O N M CN d O O O v 0 Cc d U) U U c 70 M v t O d> ti O M cc d N c •i N •tn G� N A -Ai cc.y }i C E N V •� O cc d« N ': c `� N 0. cc N d o � � c O O O M M O d ■ m d ,Q N c cc Q p 0 d N p O WE cc N O cc 0 }; v) E S cc N� N N 0 N O a� C> > =, U\ d -c O N O N O N 0 N cc 0 = ,� C d O '� C� �� d L� y ■— cc O cc �i Hto N T a -41 �I 0 O m Ar0 o U LO LO 0) 0 O O U) 00LOT- - N N 0 — E o L N fn U (6 U N c t -0 Q a E _ Cfl � N > L 00 O E 'L O.O L \O >% M N � (n0 E 0 O-W N > w O � � ' t E Cl) O -0 L � � � � E . L1 r� OE U) 0 0 k > 2 0 > 0 @ © U) @ m ccU) � 4) 4w c o c cc U U) U)U) CL 2 _e 0 m �E k 0 cc cc 7 cc = fx o U U) E Lo 0 c 2 � R cc_c LaZ E > -5 E cc 2 75 o 0 E : @ m c @ cc 0 W= _w e w 5 LU " � 2 : 0 cc UCc 2m cc G E E � 0 = ccU U E c 0 0 E E c 0 2 U)= k c E cc0 cc o M © cc E �; cc E E U) : k c cc k � CD0� U)' U) e @ U)c o w Cc O CcCc 0-cv2� E O > cc @ : @ Q @ : U) & 0 & -0 E cc cc c 0 Q o o U -0 0 > 2 0 4) = � Q 0 2 E p U E U � A © U) � U) � @ @ @ Qcc �� Q Q Q 2I-- cc U � Z - - - - - - - N N L E O L O > LE L Gi (1) CL ■� 00 C O CL W ^0 W .O E.T ai O CL a m O =+ N >CL O (I)O _ •� �/ R � 'a O�> ca}r, i E ,v�wJ — I V% L Qi O �o i� 0 ■ �i C) p N 0 � � O }� (D m o i i Lid 0 0 Q Q Lid i f` O O Z f` a Z M O O M U) O O CO CO c 2 M Lid 0 Co O E E .. Lid Lid M rn O c N — 09- — a� d9 d9 d9 aa) co E E ' a) O L Co 0 I U) VJ O O Q Q LO f` O O — f` M O O Z Z M O Cfl CO O O O O O Y O . N-09} E a>Ca E o E =aa) I E O O Co co00 U Ln Ln O O O O O Lid O O O O o I` O O O O ai L 00 O_ � � O c� O M lq L Q- Ef} Ef} Ef} � N O U) E O L 7 O U) o U O O > -0 o O CD Ln O -FCD + . CD co cq 00 N 00 Cfl N CDaui ca r- u) O o E E O +' O U O U) -a p c0 U a)•O `/ U) i > N � � � � r-� L1 � )1 Fj � c U) � 4-1� 0 cc 2 U) .a o CD > cc U) cc 2 0 o cc 2 cccc 0 � cc E > cc U)cc " cc 0 @ : � E w m � $ � m 2 o � m U) U) @ $ e @ e $ p (1) m � m � k c m � E E m > 2 . o cc E c cc m � ' 4) ■ ) to!)- E E 0 2 cc k v � c 0 $ W) CN e >% tol. � � E 2 E 0 �_ .x o cc @ E _cc N 5— m CL cc p U)C CL r - cc cc U)o ■ 2 - @ cc > U) o cc @ m � U)• E q E © — ( o c © 0 2 0 o : E m© c o 0 c U) � cc0 X � m @ @ . > 2 E p a @ �� Cc e ccm 0� I 2 @ 0 @ C14 '0 LU m co cc 0 O > O � -- ■ Z Z o O W J W 9.i o z O L L W (a cu cu U aQ �o za) V U W cu C: O N CN N J Cl) o CN J Z � .� ao JN W ' CL cu G m m a J • V 0 L 0 ♦-0 Cl) O a) a) CL C (a o Q :-. Q L CL C CU O a)�+ :-: � O a)O -0 _ a O � N O O = Cl) O a)0) O O L� �: ti C _ Vi (� a) O U N �_ CL i O ca a)O Q- � .— ca — cn � o N E 0 Q 0 -0 O E 4-0 O -a � O C O U a) > .� �, }+ a cu _ O L O � = E O cu �/ cn L a) ♦�i : a -a -a) � N 0 0- /V� O 0 0 O i � �••� a)U O L .— E O N 4-0 r. � cr ca C 4-0 c (D U (a N O (D L a c 0 a L N �' ♦"� ch 0 �+ aCL ) a) }' N in O T � N O 0 U a) o cn > cnO cn cn Q '— �, U Cl) U O O � C� i � ca_ � � Q vca a)cn OL� c(�a . ca }a � cn a) _ U cn cn•) a 0OUcnO v O 0 � CT Q Q Q 0 LJJ •- t� � 0 . L O I L6 _Cl) cu C N E c: (a cn .-. cu E cm CU L O L L O > ' O 4- N_ V♦ L (u -a a) O N 0 U 0 M to � U � a)N cl)a O N c O E V 4-0 E U 0 _ �_ Q O (a O V QL Q p O O � O C L Q. cn L fA a) " cu N —:3 N •O� E O Q O CL r U cn E o-f-j O >, E U W v . N N cn (a cu a) cu a) a 0) a) cu O _N N cn cu (a cn cn cn N E O CU O cu 0 E L i ca cn 76 4-0 a) O E E O U O E L 0 L N cn Q Q cn Q O Q cn N N 0) (a o 7 6- a) cu a) a 0) U (a L O O U a) cn (u E cu cn cn cu cn O cu cu N L 0 cu 0 4— O a J L CL 0 am (D N >O N N C: > (a a) � Q C: O ca Q O _ 4-0 a C: Q c x N O O � N �� � (DO x U co a) C/) a) a) >-, co cu L- ca .E N O L Q Q J a) a) a) E LE O co U a) cn .� Q C: CILL Q (DO U co 5 a) :3 _0 m LO m ~ > N I-CID U C a � a)4-0 O O � > O O U U ,> O U (D(D (D(D ma � ma � a) M U O co C O U U ( O x � �' J- ^1 m � U Q N Q E X W (D N O O L (y O E (DCN Q O Q N 0) i O c O a U c 3 a) a) a) 4-- a) a) -le a) � -le -a cu 4-0 -a O CN O U') N ^ N O U 4-0 � N a) a) Z O L L-- cn a) a) ca O � O L O L Ln Q � Q U C: cu N cu (a cn cn ca E ca cn N O N N C: cn C cn � (a C N ti LO N � cn cu cn cu U) U) O a O W (D (D (D f` f` f` f` f` • O O O O O O O O N N N Cfl N N N N N E N N O O cB cB cB � cB cB cB cB cB � cB cB cB Q cB cB cB cB cB Q • L= L= L L L = L = a� co x a� co x a� a� a� (� x a� (o x cn U) co v! G v! v! G v! v! v! v! G v! v! G v! LO N Cfl • O N , N O o04o • LO • O N L N O N N �_ m �' N N cn E co >+ 01 U >' 01 � LL O1 ` U �. L L co 0 0 0 • N N Cfl N CCNI CCNI CD O CD M N L r N N L .-. .-. .-. —1-. cn O E O O O N O cn O E O U U U U U U > > N O N O N Q N N O _N N Z N L N N N Z N (Tj U 0 U a) h N C CL I N L C: a) U L }, Cl) O V- C: U N (a U � ca �_ a) /1 L W O O L 0) �� O QL U N Q -a O � L � Cl) > 0 a) 0 a- CU Cl) L- L U a) O Oa N a) 0Ucu ■ C: Cl) Cl) a) � O U += cu U U a)> O a) L cu O > U : cn o cu a = }' E L 0Q cu a) Q O +a +� L O O 4-0 O O O � cn cn U a) E cn a) cn � CUO U 4-0 > CU O 0 cn U 0) ca O " o o a) a � � � � L cn V �� 0 a) ocn u }, N ca U C: � Ln 0 � U u O M O ■ a) }, Q N ca Fj : O U — cn U a) 0 cn L 0) m Spoka e jValle 10210 E Sprague Avenue ❑ Spokane Valley WA 99206 Y Phone: (509) 720-5000 ❑ www.SpokaneValleyWA.gov Memorandum To: Mayor and City Council From: Virginia Clough, Legislative Policy Coordinator Date: Mar. 4, 2025 Re: Gordon Thomas Honeywell — Government Relations Legislative Report — Mar. 2, 2025 Please find attached Gordon Thomas Honeywell Government Relations' legislative report, recapping week seven. The cutoff for fiscal committee action was last Friday, Feb. 28 and today is day 51 of the 105-day session. The report provides an overview of some noteworthy city -related bills that are now considered "dead", three of which are public safety funding bills that we supported. While those bills are no longer under consideration, there are three other public safety funding bills still in play including: • HB 2015 - Creates a new councilmanic 0.10% sales tax authority for funding criminal justice. Cities that impose the new tax are eligible to apply for a new grant program to help recruit, retain, and train officers. The bill does not specify an amount of funding for the grant program. • SIB 5060 - $100 million in grants for hiring law enforcement officers. Competitive grants would cover 75% of the costs up to $125,000 for up to three years. AWC will be asking for sustainable ongoing support beyond one-time grants. The Senate bill was amended for the grants to cover co -responders and add criteria a city must meet to qualify for funding. • SIB 5775 - Expands the existing public safety sales tax authority making it councilmanic and increasing the amount a city pay impose. SIB 5547, increasing cannabis revenue distributions bill, is also considered dead. The city testified in support of this bill and met with Senator Wagoner, the bill sponsor, in Olympia. Two bills that we strongly opposed, SB 5066 (law enforcement misconduct) and SIB 5176 (prompt payment on public works contracts), are also dead. Additionally, this week's report summarizes Gov. Ferguson's Feb. 27 press conference on the budget and other budget shortfall news. Finally, the report lists several bills that we have engaged on this session and are still under consideration. Last week, we signed in on 19 bills that had hearings before their fiscal committees and to date, we have signed in or testified on 97 bills. Starting Monday, Mar. 3, the House and Senate began meeting on the House and Senate floor, so there are no public hearings this week. Briahna plans to send the next report at the end of floor action on Mar. 12, recapping the bills that each chamber approves. 2 /000004 GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL GOVERNUENT RELATIONS City of Spokane Valley Legislative Report March 2, 2025 SESSION CUTOFF CALENDAR March 12, 2025 Chamber -of -Origin Deadline April 2, 2025 Opposite Chamber Policy Committee Deadline April 8, 2025 Opposite Chamber Fiscal Committee Deadline April 16, 2025 Opposite Chamber Deadline April 27, 2025 Session adjourns - Sine Die Weekly Overview The Legislature has been hard at work during the first seven weeks of session, considering 1,891 legislative proposals while also contemplating solutions to the state's budget challenges. The number of bills under consideration has narrowed since the policy committee cutoff occurred on February 21 and the fiscal committee cutoff occurred on February 28. Starting Monday, legislators will be meeting to approve bills on the floor. During this part of the legislative process, legislators often work very late nights and are less likely to schedule in -office meetings. Bills need to be approved by their chamber of origin by March 12 to remain under consideration for the second half of the legislative session. As of this writing, the House has passed 47 bills and the Senate has passed 97 bills. There are many city -related bills that did not make it past the latest fiscal cutoff and will no longer be under consideration. Below are a few noteworthy ones that are considered "dead" with the passing of this cutoff deadline. This report highlights those bills that advanced out of fiscal committees this past week. • Senate Bill 5066/House Bill 1056 - Concerning law enforcement misconduct • House Bill 1095 - Incentivizing cities and counties to attract and retain commissioned law enforcement officers. GTH-GOV • House Bill 1428 - Law enforcement direct distribution through the county criminal justice assistance account and municipal criminal justice assistance account. • Senate Bill 5757 - Concerning traffic safety camera revenue • House Bill 1717 - Creating a sales and use tax remittance program for affordable housing. • Senate Bill 5043/House Bill 1070 - Concerning industrial insurance coverage for posttraumatic stress disorders affecting correctional facility workers. • Senate Bill 5547 - Increasing cannabis revenue distributions to local governments. • Senate Bill 5176 — Prompt Payment on Public Works Contracts Governor Ferguson held a press conference on February 27 outlining a list of suggested cuts and delays in state spending for the Legislature to consider. As part of the budget development process, Governor Ferguson asked each state agency to submit a budget that included a six percent reduction. However, not all agency reductions are included. The budget proposal assumes there is a $15 billion shortfall over the next four years, and has proposed cuts totaling roughly $4 billion. The principles guiding these savings include: Government efficiencies, including consolidated management positions, eliminating vacancies, reducing state agency travel, and procurement of fewer goods and services; Government reforms, including re -sizing programs and reducing redundancies; and Reconsidering significant new spending. These savings are in addition to Governor Inslee's proposal, which reduced the shortfall by an additional $3 billion. Combined, those proposals reduce the shortfall by $7 billion. He acknowledged that there is more work to be done and intends to work with the Legislature as they develop their own ideas for the budget. Click here to view his budget news release. The House Democrats also launched a website for the Book One Budget to highlight what a no - new revenue budget would look like. Among the cuts listed are a $3.5 billion reduction in healthcare; $1.5 billion in cuts for human services and early learning; $365 million cuts to behavioral health; $375 million in reductions for the Department of Corrections; and cuts to Medicaid services. While Democrats say that the website and the Book One Budget are tools for understanding the state of the budget and are not considered legitimate budget proposals, Republicans say they are only a distraction and show the years of mismanagement of the state's finances. Both the House and Senate Transportation committees received a briefing from nonpartisan staff about the status of the transportation budget development. Staff presented the six -year budget outlook. The shortfall over that outlook is established to be $1 billion in 25-27, $2.7 billion in 27-29 and $3.9 billion in 29-31. Staff presented three scenarios to address the shortfall over the next six years: GTH-GOV 2 1) Reductions / Delays of major projects — even with the delay of ten large highway improvement projects throughout the state there is only a savings of $843 million in the upcoming biennium and not sufficient savings over six years to achieve a balanced budget. 2) New Revenue — seven different revenue options were presented for the committee's awareness. They included a gas tax increase, increases in vehicle registration fees, passenger vehicle weight fees, light duty truck fees, freight project fees, ferry fares, and drivers' license fees. If all the revenues were adopted, it would generate $908 million in the upcoming biennium. 3) Combination of revenue and reductions/delays. The most likely scenario is both a reduction to capital expenditures and raising new revenue. Additional costs that are not yet accounted for in the transportation budget include $5 billion for the state's culvert replacement program, $1.5 billion per year for maintenance and preservation, cost increases associated with currently planned projects, and ferry fleet replacements in the future. Click here to view slides from the House presentation and here to view slides from the Senate presentation. The Association of Washington Cities (AWC) is hard at work advocating for its members. As such, we will continue to share their resources in addition to the city's tailored reporting. We encourage you to reference the AWC Legislative Bulletin which is posted online weekly and includes updates on hot -topic bills related to cities and how AWC plans to weigh in. Policy Issues Fiscal Management 911 Funding Allocation: House Bill 1258, sponsored by Rep. Timm Ormsby (D-3rd LD), mandates revenue sharing from county tax revenues to municipal 911 systems in certain eastern Washington counties. The bill applies to counties east of the Cascade Mountains with populations between 530,000 and 1,500,000 that operate regional 911 systems transferring emergency calls to municipal 911 systems in cities with populations over 50,000. It establishes a formula for quarterly revenue transfers, requiring counties to allocate 80 percent of the calculated revenue based on the number of calls transferred to the municipal system. A substitute version of the bill was voted out of the Finance Committee on February 25 making changes to the formula of sharing tax revenues more equally. Real Estate Excise Tax Flexibility: House Bill 1791, sponsored by Rep. Dave Paul (D-10th LD), expands the permissible uses of local real estate excise tax (REET) revenues to include affordable housing, homelessness facilities, and community services, in addition to traditional capital projects. The bill increases flexibility by allowing the greater of $100,000 or 35 percent of REET funds to be used for maintenance and operations of existing capital projects, including affordable housing, without prior caps or restrictive reporting requirements. It also introduces a new tax exemption for the sale of "qualified space" in affordable housing developments to GTH-GOV 3 nonprofit organizations, housing authorities, or public corporations for community purposes such as health clinics or food banks. Additionally, the bill simplifies administrative processes by removing requirements for written funding reports and public budget adoption related to REET fund usage. A substitute version of the bill was voted out of the House Finance Committee on February 26. The bill adds public investments to the definition of capital projects for REET 2 and adds construction and improvement of affordable housing projects support through interlocal housing collaborations to allowable uses to REET 2. It also changes the effective date of the REET exemption portion to January 1, 2026. These changes were originally in House Bill 1694 and they were consolidated into HB 1791. Housing Affordability Housing Cost Analysis: House Bill 1108, sponsored by Rep. Mark Klicker (R-16th LD), establishes a legislative task force to analyze the primary cost drivers of homeownership and rental housing in Washington State. The task force will include four legislative members and seventeen non - legislative members representing diverse stakeholders, such as housing developers, labor organizations, local governments, tenants, landlords, and financial institutions. It is tasked with identifying cost drivers and soliciting input from relevant stakeholders, with findings and recommendations due by December 1, 2026. A public hearing was held in the House Appropriations Committee on February 25, and executive action was taken in the same committee on February 27. The City signed in support of the bill. The bill was voted out of committee with an amendment that would limit the task force to three meetings and require all task force meetings to be held virtually. Homelessness Regulation Framework: House Bill 1380, sponsored by Rep. Mia Gregerson (D- 33rd LD), establishes a regulatory framework for the use of public property concerning individuals experiencing homelessness in Washington State. The bill requires local laws regulating activities like sitting, lying, or sleeping outdoors to be objectively reasonable in terms of time, place, and manner, with special consideration given to the impact on homeless individuals. It allows individuals to challenge such laws in court and assert an affirmative defense if the regulations are not reasonable, while explicitly prohibiting claims for monetary damages. A substitute version of the bill was voted out of the House Appropriations Committee. Click here to view the changes made to the bill. The City signed in opposed to this proposal. Paid Family and Medical Leave: House Bill 1213, sponsored by Rep. Liz Berry (D-36), expands worker protections and small business support under Washington State's Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) program. The bill reduces the minimum claim duration for PFML benefits from eight to four consecutive hours. Small businesses with fewer than 50 employees become eligible to apply for grants to offset costs associated with employee leave, including hiring temporary workers and covering health care benefit costs for up to four months. The House Appropriations Committee held a public hearing on February 22. The Committee heard testimony from MomsRising in support of this bill because it is an equity fix for individuals who can't take leave without risking their jobs. The Washington Food Industry Association, Washington Retail Association, Washington Hospitality Association, and the National GTH-GOV 4 Federation of Independent Business testified in opposition with concerns regarding the costs to small businesses and emphasized that there are other challenges that exist in current law which are not addressed in this bill. The program is already behind in meeting current demand and the additional claims this legislation creates will only exacerbate the backlog. The bill was voted out of committee with an amendment that requires an employee to work at least 180 days for their current employer to qualify for employment protection under the Paid Family and Medical Leave Act (PFMLA), changing the threshold from 90 days in the underlying bill and 12 months in current law. It also mandates employers to provide notice of employment protection expiration after 14 workdays of intermittent leave and allows employers to estimate required calculations using information from the employee and the Employment Security Department. The City signed in opposed to the bill. Local Decision -Making Authority Neighborhood Cafes: House Bill 1175, sponsored by Rep. Mark Klicker (R-16th LD), mandates that cities and towns allow neighborhood cafes in residential areas, with provisions regulating parking, hours of operation, and additional local controls such as maximum square footage. Neighborhood cafes must offer food if they serve alcohol and are allowed to operate for at least 12 consecutive hours. The bill was voted out of the House Appropriations Committee on February 25 with two amendments. The first amendment allows cities to regulate signage and advertisements and prohibits neighborhood stores or cafes from having signage visible for products that are illegal to sell to those under 21 and nicotine. The second makes neighborhood cafes exempt from SEPA and allows all other code requirements (setbacks, stormwater, etc.) to apply to neighborhood cafes. Child Care Zoning: Senate Bill 5509, sponsored by Sen. Emily Alvarado (D-34th LD), mandates that cities, towns, and code cities in Washington State allow child care centers as a permitted use in all non -industrial zones. The bill requires jurisdictions to amend their zoning and development regulations to comply within one year of their next periodic comprehensive plan update under the Growth Management Act or, for non-GMA jurisdictions, within one year of the bill's effective date. Cities may impose reasonable restrictions on permits, such as requirements for pickup and drop-off areas. The Senate Ways & Means Committee held an executive session on the bill on February 27. An amendment to expand the zones where child care centers are allowed as an outright permitted use to include industrial and light industrial zones was rejected, and the committee approved the bill with bipartisan support. Mobile Dwellings Zoning: House Bill 1443, sponsored by Rep. Mia Gregerson (D-33rd LD), requires cities to allow "homes on wheels" (e.g. RVs, travel trailers, and tiny homes on wheels) on residential lots under specific conditions. The policy committee made changes to the bill around water and sewer connections. The bill includes a requirement for a water connection made through a yard hydrant or anti -siphon hose bib be certified for potable use and that the mobile dwelling unit occupants have 24/7 access to potable water, toilets, and showers in an existing housing unit on the lot if the unit does not have internal plumbing. A substitute version GTH-GOV 5 of House Bill 1443 passed the committee 13-5 and made several changes that align with the requests made by cities. The House Appropriations Committee held a public hearing on February 22. The City signed in opposed to the bill. Washington Tiny House Association, Operation Tiny Home, Sightline Institute, and others testified in support of the bill because it provides a lower cost option for affordable housing that can help bridge the gap from homelessness to home ownership. The Association of Washington Cities and City of Kent testified in opposition to the bill. They oppose the bill because there are unknown consequences of treating temporary accommodations like permanent housing, environmental impacts to critical areas, and water quality concerns. The bill was voted out of committee on February 26 on a party line vote with an amendment that requires cities or counties to allow up to two, rather than one, mobile dwellings on each residential lot. Additionally, it adds a null and void clause unless funding is provided in the state budget. An amendment that aimed to define a "mobile dwelling" as a tiny house on wheels was not adopted. Transit -Oriented Development: House Bill 1491, sponsored by Rep. Julia Reed (D-36th LD), requires cities to adopt density regulations facilitating TOD in designated "station areas," including minimum floor area ratios, affordable housing requirements, limited parking requirements, and development incentives. A public hearing occurred on February 25 in the House Capital Budget Committee. The City signed in "other" on the bill. The Washington Low Income Housing Alliance, Futurewise, and others testified in support of the bill stating that it will result in much needed affordable housing near transit rich areas while preventing displacement. The City of Fife, City of Edmonds, and the City of Mercer Island testified "other," with funding concerns in relation to the grant program and various language fixes . There was no testimony in opposition. The following day, the bill passed out of committee with two amendments. The first reduces the size of a rail station area for a commuter rail stop in a city with a population no greater than 15,000 from one-half mile walking distance to one -quarter mile walking distance. The second amendment clarifies the categorical exemption from the State Environmental Policy Act for residential or mixed -use development within a station area. The bill then had a public hearing in the House Appropriations Committee on February 27 where a similar group testified with a mix of positions. The bill passed out of committee with two amendments. The first removes the requirement for the Department of Commerce to convert different measurements of residential density to the transit -oriented development density and floor area ratio requirements. The second adds a null and void clause unless funded in the state budget. Child Care Facilities: Senate Bill 5655, sponsored by Sen. Deborah Krishnadasan (D-26th LD), and House Bill 1582, sponsored by Rep. Michelle Caldier (R-26th LD), facilitates the use of existing multi -use buildings, such as churches, for child care services by modifying how occupancy loads are calculated under building and fire safety codes. The bill requires that occupancy loads in multi -use buildings be calculated solely based on the areas used for child care services, reducing regulatory barriers for repurposing such spaces. These changes apply to both building code enforcement under Chapter 19.27 RCW and licensing standards under RCW 43.216.265, aligning fire safety and licensing requirements with the new calculation method. GTH-GOV 6 On February 25, the Senate adopted a 1st substitute bill and passed Senate Bill 5655 on third reading with a vote of 49 yeas, 0 nays, 0 absent, and 0 excused. Commerce Approval of Housing Element: Senate Bill 5148, sponsored by Senator Jessica Bateman (D-22nd LD), requires cities to submit their housing elements and development regulations to the Department of Commerce for compliance review. Key provisions include establishing a submission and review process, requiring housing elements to meet minimum compliance standards before taking effect, and restricting local governments from denying affordable or moderate -income housing developments without specific legal justification. A substitute version of the bill was voted out of the Senate Ways & Means Committee on February 28. Click here to view the list of changes to the bill. Streamlining Subdivisions: Senate Bill 5559, sponsored by Sen. Liz Lovelett (D-40th LD), aims to streamline the subdivision process in urban growth areas by establishing a framework for "unit lot subdivisions." Futurewise testified as "other," noting that they are collaborating with the prime sponsor on language that explains what gets permitted or restricted immediately if a city does not adopt or enact the procedures. The Washington Realtors supported the bill, highlighting that it provides a helpful framework for cities to comply. They mentioned that this process already exists and aligns with what other cities are doing, following similar legislation passed in the previous biennium. They further noted that this would enable more housing in already urbanized areas designated under GMA and would clarify lot sizes (townhouses) vs. short plats regulations. The Master Builders of Snohomish Counties and BIAW testified that this simplifies the process for land use and affordable housing. The Association of Washington Cities explained that this would facilitate home ownership but emphasized the need to ensure alignment with coding and regulations, similar to the significant work required on HB 1096. Floor amendment(s) were adopted on February 28 in the Senate, and the bill passed its third reading on the same day with 48 yeas, 0 nays, 0 absent, and 1 excused. Residential Development Standards: Senate Bill 5613, sponsored by Sen. Jesse Salomon (D- 32nd LD), requires cities and counties to adopt clear and objective development regulations. The bill directs the Department of Commerce to create a stakeholder work group to analyze barriers to housing and to develop model codes with clear and objective standards. The Senate Ways & Means Committee held a public hearing on February 26 and approved an amended version of the bill on February 28 that clarifies the bill language, extends the deadline by when Commerce can development a model code, and allows cities to comply with the bill if they adopt regulations substantially similar to those in the bill Public Safety & Behavioral Health Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform: House Bill 1440, sponsored by Rep. Roger Goodman (D-45th LD), standardizes civil asset forfeiture procedures and strengthens protections for property owners. The bill requires seizing agencies to notify property owners within 15 days of a seizure and shifts the burden of proof to the agency to establish forfeiture by a preponderance of the evidence. It also provides protection for innocent owners, mandates attorney fees for claimants who prevail, and ensures that victim restitution is satisfied before agencies retain or use GTH-GOV 7 forfeited property. Additionally, the bill enhances transparency through detailed reporting requirements, establishes a public database of forfeiture activity, and directs 10 percent of net forfeiture proceeds to state programs. A public hearing was held in the House Transportation Committee on February 24. The Institute for Justice testified in support of the bill because it enhances reporting laws and does not create a huge fiscal impact as this is information that law enforcement agencies already have. The Washington Association of Sheriffs & Police Chiefs, Washington State Narcotics Investigators Association, and the City of Kent testified "other," stating that there is an unfunded mandate created by the bill and technical provision changes are needed. Law enforcement officers are already understaffed and adding administrative tasks to their workload will only worsen that imbalance. The City signed in opposed to the bill. There was no testimony in opposition. The bill passed out of committee on February 27 with one striking amendment. It removes the provision requiring seizing agencies to annually report information about seized and forfeited property and expenditures from net proceeds to the Washington State Patrol (WSP), requiring the WSP to make the reports available on a searchable public website and issue an annual report summarizing forfeiture activity in the state. It also amends the section giving the WSP rulemaking authority to implement the chapter. Law Enforcement Aviation: House Bill 1969, sponsored by Rep. Brian Burnett (R-12), creates a grant program to support law enforcement aviation units and incorporates sheriff's offices into the state's aerial wildfire response framework. The grant program, administered by the Department of Emergency Management, allocates 50 percent of funds for operational costs and the remainder for reimbursing search and rescue missions. Sheriff's offices are added as eligible recipients of aerial fire suppression funding during initial wildfire attacks, provided they use their own or leased aviation assets and meet training requirements. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) must include sheriff's offices in its annual wildfire aviation report and consult with them on aviation program performance, with these provisions expiring on July 1, 2027. The House Appropriations Committee held a hearing on the bill on February 26 and was voted out of committee on February 28 with two amendments The first removes the addition of sheriff's office to DNR's use of suppression funding for aerial wildland fire fighting, and the second adds a null and void clause subject to funding in the state budget. The City signed in support of the bill. Public Safety Funding Proposals: There are three public safety funding proposals that remain under consideration post cutoff: House Bill 2015, sponsored by Rep. Debra Entenman (D-47th LD), and developed by the Members of Color Caucus, establishes mechanisms to enhance funding for local law enforcement recruitment, retention, training, and public safety initiatives. The bill creates a supplemental criminal justice account in the state treasury, with funds distributed quarterly to qualified cities and counties that meet specific requirements, including imposing a local option sales and use tax of 0.1 percent by June 30, 2027. Additional requirements include compliance with state training mandates, vacancy disclosures, and adherence to model policies. Grant GTH-GOV 8 funds may be used for officer recruitment, retention bonuses, required training, and broader public safety efforts, while tax revenue must support criminal justice purposes, including domestic violence services. The bill had two public hearings this week, first in the House Finance Committee on February 24 and then the Appropriations Committee on February 27. The City signed in support of the bill. During the hearings, the Office of the Governor, King County, Association of Washington Cities, and many other stakeholders testified in support of the bill because it provides local governments with multiple revenue options to build out the criminal justice system. Washington Citizens Against Unfair Taxes and an Initiative Activist testified against the bill, highlighting the cumulative effect of so many taxes on constituents. King County Superior Court and Superior Court Judges' Association testified "other," stating that the function of the bill as a means to help the courts is appreciated as they are facing funding and staffing challenges. The bill was approved by both committees, with two amendments passed by the House Appropriations Committee. The first amendment clarifies that the enforcement agency must be located in a jurisdiction that has authorized the sales and use tax in order to be eligible for the grant and extends the deadlines for imposing the tax from June 30 to December 31, 2027. The second adds a null and void clause subject to funding in the budget. Senate Bill 5775, sponsored by Sen. Vandana Slatter (D-48th LD), expands the authority of local governments to impose sales and use taxes for public safety and community protection programs without voter approval. Counties may impose a tax of up to 0.3 percent by ordinance or resolution through January 1, 2028, while cities may impose a tax of up to 0.1 percent between December 31, 2025, and January 1, 2028. Revenue generated without voter approval must be fully allocated to criminal justice, fire protection, community protection, or public safety purposes, including behavioral health, co -responder, and diversion treatment programs. A public hearing was held in the Senate Ways & Means Committee on February 25. The City signed in support of the bill The Association of Washington Cities, Washington Food Industry Association, Washington Retail Association, Washington Association for Substance Misuse & Violence Prevention, and others testified in support of the bill. The bill was voted out of committee on February 27 with no changes. Senate Bill 5060 creates a grant program to support law enforcement hiring, including officers, peer counselors, and behavioral health personnel in co -response roles. In addition to financial assistance, the bill requires applicant agencies to comply with specific training and policy standards, such as use -of -force policies and crisis intervention training. It also tasks the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs with reporting statewide law enforcement staffing trends. The bill passed out of the Senate Ways & Means Committee on February 27 with three amendments. The bill now includes county corrections officer to the list of those eligible for the grant program, reduces the grant eligibility requirement of officer compliance with the Criminal Justice Training Commission's crisis intervention team training from 80 percent to 25 percent and makes technical corrections. GTH-GOV 9 Transportation/Public Works Public Works Bidding: House Bill 1549, sponsored by Rep. Mary Fosse (D-38th LD), makes adjustments to responsible bidder criteria for public works projects. The bill allows contractors to bid on public works contracts without completing prevailing wage training if they have completed a public works project in the past three years without violations. The bill also adjusts when an apprenticeship utilization plan is required . House Bill 1549 was heard in the House Capital Budget Committee on FebruarV 25. During the hearing, Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers and the Washington State Building & Construction Trades Council testified in support of the bill because it will connect apprentices with contractors and help build out the state's workforce as well as lower costs. The Mechanical Contractors Association of Western Washington testified "other," stating that, with a clarifying fix, this bill can begin to close the gap between apprenticeships and contractors. The City signed in support of the bill. There was no testimony in opposition. A substitute version of the bill passed out of committee the following day extending the date to July 1, 2027 for bidders to have, within the previous three years, at least one public works project with no citations for violations, or at least one designated officer or employee who has received training on public works or prevailing wage. It also extends the date for Labor and Industries to publicly available information for bidder compliance and records of those who have completed training. The bill had another public hearing on FebruarV 27 in the House Appropriations Committee and the Building & Construction Trades Council testified in support. The bill was voted out of committee on February 28 with no changes. Prevailing Wage Adjustments: Senate Bill 5061, sponsored by Sen. Steve Conway (D-29th LD), mandates that wages on public works projects be adjusted to match the prevailing wage rates in effect at the time the work is performed, rather than being fixed at the time bids are submitted. This change ensures that laborers, workers, and mechanics receive fair compensation throughout the duration of long-term projects. A public hearing was held in the Senate Transportation Committee on FebruarV 24. The City signed in opposition to the bill. The Washington State Labor Council, Washington State Building & Construction Trades Council, National Electrical Contractors Association, and many other stakeholders testified in support. They expressed support for the bill because it aligns construction workers' wages with current rates and allows contractors to retain their workforce, thus reducing project delays and costs. The Association of Washington Housing Authorities, Associated Builders & Contractors Inland Pacific Chapter, and Associated General Contractors of Washington testified in opposition to the bill because the resulting costs will be higher than estimated and it will be harder for contractors to get financing for projects. Washington Public Ports Association, Association of Washington Cities, and Washington State Association of County Engineers testified "other," stating that, with further amendments, the underlying intent of the bill can be upheld and they are confident there is a path forward for this legislation. GTH-GOV 10 The committee voted the bill out of committee on February 25 with two amendments. The first amendment requires contracts to stipulate that the minimum hourly wage rate must be adjusted annually so that it is not less than the prevailing wage, rather than when the work is performed. It also excludes small works roster projects from the bill. The second pushes out the effective date to July 1, 2027. GTH-GOV 11