Loading...
2025, 04-01 Formal B MeetingMINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Meeting Formal B Format Tuesday, April 01, 2025 Mayor Haley called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.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 Kelly Konkright, City Attorney Jessica Yaeger, Councilmember Tony Beattie, Sr. Deputy City Attorney Ben Wick, Councilmember John Bottelli, Parks & Rec Director Al Merkel, Councilmember Jill Smith, Communications Manager Robert Blegen, Public Works Director Dave Ellis, Police Chief John Whitehead, HR Director Virgina Clough, Legislative Policy Coordinator Caitlin Prunty, Deputy City Attorney Adam Jackson, Engineering Manager Sarah Farr, Accounting & Finance Program Mngr Chad Knodel, IT Manager Marci Patterson, City Clerk INVOCATION: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council, staff and the audience stood for the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Patterson called roll; all Councilmembers were present, APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Deputy Mayor Hattenburg, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. SPECIAL GUESTS/PRESENTATIONS: PROCLAMATIONS: GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY: After Mayor Haley explained the process, she invited public comment. Mike Dolan, Spokane Valley; Kyle Lundeen, Spokane Valley; Joseph Ghodsee, Spokane Valley; Darryl Williams, Spokane Valley; William Hidings, Spokane; John Harding, Spokane Valley; Justin Haller, Spokane; Victoria Robbins, Spokane; Jodie Buehler, Spokane Valley; and Sam Henderson, Spokane provided comments on various topics. ACTION ITEMS: 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Potential Public Safety Sales Tax Measure — Erik Lamb, Kelly Konkright Mayor Haley opened the public hearing at 6:28p.m. Deputy City Manager Lamb opened the PowerPoint presentation with an introduction to the information that will be presented. Chief Ellis reviewed PowerPoint with information that included the overall numbers of the city populations and the number of businesses, the calls for service and response trends, the 2023 Matrix Staffing Study and their recommendations, the outcomes of those recommendations and what we hope to see with additional police Council Meeting Minutes, Study Session: 04-01-2025 Pagel of 5 Approved by Council: 04-22-2025 staffing. Mr. Lamb spoke about the 2024 Community Survey and the results of the survey and what the respondents wanted per the survey and how could the additional positions be funded. Mr. Lamb also spoke about the Phase I implementation of the additional police officers in a variety of positions to allow for assistance across the board without any additional taxes. Mr. Lamb spoke to the 2025 budget, the next increase in costs for additional officers, the net one-time decreases to the 2025 budget that already happened. He continued to provide details on other cities of similar comparisons for police comparisons, looking forward to 2026, revenue projections, expenditure projections, and reviewed alternatives to a sales tax that included: do nothing, consider other revenue options, cut other basic city services to fund additional public safety. Mr. Lamb further detailed what a public safety sales tax is. Chief Ellis spoke about the need and the outcomes for what the funds would be used for if approved to take to a vote of the people. Ms. Gregory, with our Bond Counsel spoke about the Ordinance being presented, what is included in the Ordinance and how the city would move forward with the Ordinance if approved. She also spoke about the explanatory statement and the need for it. Mr. Lamb finalized with the next steps for the potential ballot measure. Councilmember Merkel expressed wanting to pay for public safety first in the 2026 budget and then fill in as needed and go to the voters for any additional wants. Mr. Hohman pointed out that that item was covered in great detail at the Winter Workshop. Councilmember Merkel noted that his exercise for his way was not covered in the workshop. Councilmember Yaeger poised a point of order and stated that there was zero support in that item at the workshop or to move forward with it. Mayor Haley agreed. Councilmember Merkel requested an appeal on the ruling. The request died with a lack of a second. Mayor Haley invited public comments. Ben Lund, Spokane Valley; John Harding, Spokane Valley; Madeline Rogers, Spokane Valley; Kaiey Hughes, Spokane Valley; Pat Dempsey, Spokane Valley; Kaylie Jackman, Spokane; and Riley Kuespert-Robbs, Spokane Valley provided comments. Mayor Haley closed the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. 2. Ordinance 25-004: First Read. Voter Approved Public Safety Sales Tax Measure — Erik Lamb After City Clerk Patterson read the Ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Hattenburg and seconded to advance Ordinance No. 25-004, submitting a 0.1 % public safety sales tax measure to voters at the August 5, 2025 election, to a second reading, or take other action deemed appropriate. Mr. Lamb noted that he had nothing to add from his previous presentation at the Public Hearing and would take questions or comments. Councilmember Yaeger noted that this is the first step, not for new taxes but taking it to the voters. She also Spokane about the survey that was previously mentioned and that it was frustrating because the city held events, handed out cards, not sure what else we could have done. She noted that there was an excellent overview on the previous presentation. Deputy Mayor Hattenburg provided details on homeless services and that the new phase would be adding an additional officer, and he appreciated the comments and we are working on it and adding resource officers to the schools. Councilmember Merkel asked if funding was for staffing only, if there was a sunset clause on the funds, and if there was a budget reform. Mr. Lamb noted that it was for staffing and other services pertaining to public safety as stated in the RCW, there was not a sunset clause on the funding, and that we have reviewed the contract each year and each time it is renewed. Mr. Hohman followed up on comments and noted that the indirect rates are not what we are paying the officers and not the sheriffs dept, it is the other departments that relate to the sheriff that will be reviewed. Councilmember Merkel commented that we are adding police officers and have not done from 2008 to 2025 and have not added. We are catching up at this point and the number of officers we have in the valley is quite short in comparison. He felt that we have done the work to find the cuts and government efficiency is not as good as it could be and public safety should be fully funded first. Councilmember Higgins stated let's don't get ahead of our skis, we are voting on putting this in front of the people first, that is what this ordinance is for. Councilmember Wick spoke about the study that we did on public safety and noted that phase two has co -response teams included on it and currently we don't have round-the-clock services for homeless services, and we know we need services for seven days a week and for resource officers for all of the high schools. He also spoke about the traffic and crime and that this is how we came up with the officers that we need the most, as there are a number of other priorities that we are trying to cover and continue to pay for. This Ordinance is putting forward a potential vote of the people. Councilmember Padden stated that she believes the costs are apparent and ongoing, especially with an increase in the officers, their vehicles, pay, and outfitting them. We have been fiscal, and cuts have been one-time cuts. The survey was not scientific and therefore it needs to go to a vote of the people. Mayor Haley stated that this is for public safety and can Council Meeting Minutes, Study Session: 04-01-2025 Page 2 of Approved by Council: 04-22-2025 go to the co -response teams. She also stated that she was frustrated by the survey results and she attended the events to hand out cards and no one showed up. So ultimately, we want to go to the voters and have you tell us what to do and how to move forward. Vote by acclamation: in favor: Mayor Haley, Deputy Mayor Hattenburg, Counciltnembers Higgins, Padden, Wick and Yaeger. Opposed: Councilmember Merkel. Motion carried. Mayor Haley called for a recess at 7:33prn for 12 minutes and that the meeting would resume at 7.•45prn. 3. Ordinance 25-003: First Read: CTA Relating to Illicit Massage Business - Kelly Konkright, Caitlin Prunty, Chief Ellis and Detective Keys After City Clerk Patterson read the Ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Hattenburg and seconded to advance Ordinance No. 25-003, to a second reading. Ms. Prunty opened the conversation with a PowerPoint presentation that included details on the history of the municipal code and the need for revisions, the proposed changes to the code that included the Massage Therapist regulations, business license requirements, and violations. She also reviewed the new chapter 5.30 with the massage therapy regulations and who can be held responsible for violations, the amendments of chapter 5.05 with the business license regulations, amendments to SVMC 8.20.110 which relates to criminal code. Ms. Prunty went over the effects of the changes to the code and how it will assist with prosecution for the illicit businesses. Chief Ellis highlighted the good work being done by the detectives on the investigations. Council discussed the changes to the code and felt like staff had worked well with the Washington State Massage Therapy Association. Mayor Haley invited public comments. Robbin Blake, Burien (via Zoom): Joseph Ghodsee, Spokane Valley; and Kaylie Jackman, Spokane Valley provided comments. Vote by acclamation: in favor: Unanimous. Opposed.• None. Motion carried. 4. Resolution 25-003: Declaring the City is not a sanctuary city — Erik Lamb It was moved by Deputy Mayor Hattenhurg and seconded to adopt Resolution No. 25-003 declaring the City is not a sanctuary City. Mr. Lamb and Chief Ellis opened the discussion with a brief overview of the history of the previous non -sanctuary city Resolution that the city adopted in 2016. Mr. Lamb noted that the new resolution would make the city more compliant with both state and federal laws. Chief Ellis noted that there would not be anything done differently from what was being done from 2016 to current and would align with what the current activities are. Council questioned the law enforcement and would they check immigration status or would this resolution prevent that. Mr. Lamb noted that section 2 states under "the law", which covers state and federal laws. Mayor Haley called for public comments. Miguel Valencia, Spokane (via Zoom); Justice Forral, Spokane (via Zoom); Evee Polanski, Spokane (via Zoom); Michelle Cantin, Spokane; Scott Ward, Spokane Valley; Schade Jameson -David Maghan, Spokane Valley; Jordan Bailey, Spokane Valley; Andres Grageda, Spokane Valley; David Bookeback, Spokane; Ad Dean, Spokane Riley Kuespert-Robbs, Spokane Valley; Gayle Shelly, Spokane Valley; Ariana Vargas, Spokane; Echo Oso, Spokane Valley; Michelle Kelso, Spokane Valley; Fran Malone, Spokane Valley; Bailey Young, Spokane Valley; Michael Kelso, Spokane Valley; Sam Henderson, Spokane; Victoria Robbins, Spokane. Councilmember Yaeger poised a point of privilege and stated that snapping is akin to the clapping and is distracting. Mayor Haley agreed and noted that you are not allowed to do anything after a speaker is done and any additional noise and we will stop comments. Public comments resumed. Kaylie Jackman, Spokane; Madeline Rogers, Spokane; Christy Armstrong, Spokane; Dean Floerchinger, Spokane Valley; Pascal Bostic, Spokane; Andrew LeGreaux, Coeur d'Alene; Michael Doyle, Spokane; Jennifer Calvert, Spokane Valley; and Amber Ross, Cheney. It was moved by Councilmember Yaeger and seconded to extend the meeting to 10.-30 p.m. Approved unanimously, Public comments resumed. Joseph Ghodsee, Spokane Valley; Ali Nudsen, Spokane Valley; Emily Dunlap, Spokane Valley; Erin Gallagher, Spokane Valley; John Harding, Spokane Valley; Ben Lund, Spokane Valley; and Shawn Stevens, Spokane Valley. Depty Mayor Hattenburg felt as though this would be a violation of the constitution. Councilmember Yaeger stated that we are fighting for funding at a federal level. Councilmember Merkel appreciated the comments but felt that this is a political waste of time. Vote by acclamation: in favor: Mayor Haley, Councilnrembers Merkel, Higgins, Yaeger and Padden. Opposed. - Deputy Mayor Hattenburg and Councilmember Wick. Motion carried Council Meeting Minutes, Study Session: 04-01-2025 Page 3 of 5 Approved by Council: 04-22-2025 5. Motion Consideration: Appoint members for Homeless/Housing Task Force — Gloria Mantz It was moved by Deputy Mayor Hattenburg and seconded to adopt Resolution move to confirm the Mayoral appointments to the Permanent Homeless and Housing Task Force as listed in the table. Ms. Mantz provided a brief explanation of the permanent task force and then allowed Mayor Haley to provide details. Mayor Haley noted that she spoke to each of the applicants and is looking forward to having them be part of the task force. Councilmember Merkel asked if there were any additional applicants and Mayor Haley stated there were not; only those that applied. Mayor Haley asked for public comments; no comments were offered. Vote by acclamation: in fcn7or: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. NON -ACTION ITEMS: 6. Admin Report: Affordable Housing RFP Presentations — Gloria Mantz Sarah Farr Ms. Mantz opened the discussion and provided a background on the RFP process, the property that the RFP is for and the location of the property and the schedule of the RFP process. Ms. Farr spoke about the property transfer, the proposal review and interviews and noted that 4420 N Best Road LLC withdrew from the proposal process. Ms. Farr detailed the city council ranking decision sheet and how to fill it out. She also explained the city ranking process and noted that the applicants would be providing a ten minute presentation on their proposals and that council could provide questions at the end of the presentation. Councilmember Merkel asked about the median income levels and to provide an explanation. City Attorney Konkright provided an explanation in regard to this RFP process and how it pertains to the affordable housing proposals. Ms. Girardot, CEO for Habitat for Humanity, and Mr. Eric Lyons, COO for Habitat for Humanity discussed PowerPoint presentation that detailed the Habitat's Homeownership Model, how the model ensures affordability, housing needs and priorities, housing needs and priorities, community impact, financials, feasibility & project schedule, and Habitat Spokane's proven track record in homeownership. Council spoke about the number of units and how the financing works for the Habitat projects. The final proposal was from Millennium Northwest and Mr. Mark Michaelis, Founder, Justice Pursuit and Mr. Mike Stanicar, Managing Director of Architecture for Bernardo Wills Architecture both provided details in the PowerPoint presentation that included their mission, the community impact, private social impact funding advantage, they are a proven team of experts, information on the four workforce housing projects that included a project overview, timeline, and project costs. Council discussed the number of units for their project and how the ownership would work for that project as well. The units would all be rentals with no ownership provisions. Mayor Haley thanked both parties for their presentations. 7. Admin Report: Commute Trip Reduction Plan Update 2025-2029 - Adam Jackson LeAnn Yamamoto Mr. Jackson provided a brief background and the need for the plan update and then introduced Ms. LeAnn Yamamoto, TDM Manager, Spokane County, Commute Smart NW Program. Ms. Yamamoto provided details on the CTR Plan Update 2025-2029 with a PowerPoint presentation that included a plan overview, and counties with UGA's that are affected by the CTR law. She also noted that Spokane county has been the lead agency since 1993, provided impressive results from a weekly and yearly basis for the program, details of Spokane Valley's CTR plan, and provided baselines and targets, the new CTR plan timeline. Council did not offer any questions and Mayor Haley thanked Ms. Yamamoto for her presentation. 8 Admin Report: Aquifer Protection Area Report — Erik Lamb Robert Blegen Adam Jackson Mr. Lamb, Mr. Blegen and Mr. Jackson provided details on the Aquifer Protection Area with a PowerPoint Presentation that included the purpose of the APA, Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer and what it is, what the APA is, that it is administered by Spokane County, the current APA funds efforts to protect the aquifer, program goals of the Spokane County APA Program, APA Program Tasks, APA funds used in the Spokane Valley that includes the septic tank elimination program and the decant facility, the current capital improvement projects for stormwater to direct it to catch basins. Mr. Lamb provided details on the next steps for a potential county ballot measure in August 2025. Council discussed the need to protect the amount that we pay in and that it should come back to the city if something happened, the education on the APA, the $15 fee for the APA and discussion around the monitoring stations. Council provided consensus to come back with a motion for approval at a later date. Council Meeting Minutes, Study Session: 04-01-2025 Page 4 of 5 Approved by Council: 04-22-2025 It was moved by Councilmember Yaeger and seconded to extend the meeting to 11: 00 p.m. Approved unanimously. 10. Admin Report: Potential Grant: WA State Department of Transportation Bridge Program - Adam Jackson Mr. Jackson spoke about the 2025 TIP amendment and provided brief details on the project due to the late hour. He outlined the federal local bridge program and provided a background on the Sullivan and Trent interchange project that the grant would be submitted for and noted that he was looking for consensus to move forward. Council spoke briefly about the project and the bridge program and provided consensus to return at a later date with a motion for the program. INFORMATION ONLY: 11. Flora Cross Country Complex — County Sewer Easement 12. SREC ACE Accreditation for Emergency Medical Dispatch Services GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY: Mayor Haley stated that the general public comment rules still apply and called for public comments. No comments were provided. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Merkel provided comments that he was sad to see that the vast amount of people here tonight have left and spoke about the waste of the ballot item and the tax increase, finally traffic safety and that the city needs to speed up on the traffic camera issues. He would also like to see an update on the upcoming changes to the Bowdish roundabout as he has gotten calls on the project. Councilmember Padden stated that we did indicate and show that we have made cuts in the budget and have paid for Phase one and now we are now turning it over to the people. She also spoke about how well the DC trip went and that there were good meetings with our delegates, and an interesting and important meeting with the inter -governmental affairs office. Councilmember Yaeger spoke about her previous statements on the city continuing to be a non -sanctuary city. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS Mr. Hohman spoke about a draft support letter for congressionally directed spending request for an ECEAP childcare center at Orchard Vista. This letter would go to Senator Murray for CDS applications and Mr. Hohman was looking for a consensus to sign as it supports our projects in the Valley and the Spokane Housing Authority. Council provided consensus to allow the mayor to sign the support letter. Mr. Hohman also provided details on the Washington D.C. trip and noted that the meetings helped to move the Pines GSP project along. He stated that they met with Murray's office and by Wednesday the detailed plans were approved. The meeting with governmental affairs went well and FRA is finally getting to work on the project as well. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Hattenburg, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 10:38 p.m. ATTEST: 1 Mar i Patterson, City Clerk Council Meeting Minutes, Study Session: 04-01-2025 Approved by Council: 04-22-2025 Pam Haley, Mayor Page 5 of 5 PUBLIC COMMENT SIGN -IN SHEET SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday, April 1, 2025 6:00 p.m. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY #1 Please sign up to speak for up to THREE minutes and the Mayor will afford the public the opportunity to speak. The public comment opportunity is limited to a maximum of 45 minutes. You may only speak at one of the comment opportunities, not at both public comment opportunities. NAME PLEASE PRINT TOPIC YOU WILL SPEAK ABOUT YOUR CITY OF RESIDENCE 19C DOL4 xrs AAF9 5 L. spa Y(-& L')tit'E'&j P-b, SAS, SP�;�NL vA�Y ob CA-, - Please note that once information is entered on this form, it becomes a public record subject to public disclosure. Public Hearing — Potential Public Safety Sales Tax Measure SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday, April 1, 2025 6:00 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN UP Please sign up to speak for up to THREE minutes. NAME PLEASE PRINT YOUR CITY OF RESIDENCE Please note that once information is entered on this form, it becomes a public record subject to public disclosure. Spokane jValle - 10210 E Sprague Avenue ❑Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5000 ❑ www.SpokaneValleyWA.gov Memorandum To: Mayor and City Council From: Virginia Clough, Legislative Policy Coordinator Date: April 1, 2025 Re: Gordon Thomas Honeywell — Government Relations Legislative Report — March 30, 2025 Please find attached Gordon Thomas Honeywell Government Relations' legislative report for the week of March 24-28. Tomorrow is the cutoff for opposite chamber policy committee action and Tuesday, April 8 is the cutoff for opposite chamber fiscal committee action. Today is day 79 of the 105-day session. Last week, we signed in on 11 bills. The Senate and House Transportation and Operating Budget proposals had public hearings and each passed out of their committees last week. The House Transportation Budget Proposal does not include new projects and the Senate released two proposals, one with new revenue, and one without. The Senate's "no new revenue" Transportation Budget Proposal does not include the city's Barker/1-90 Interchange request for $1 million. However, the Senate's new revenue proposal includes a list of projects that could be eligible for funding if additional revenue is raised. This list does include the Barker/1-90 Interchange. If a list of new projects is included in the final Transportation Budget, then WSDOT would be tasked with recommending how much funding is allocated to each project and in what years to the 2026 Legislature. The House and Senate Capital Budgets were released on March 31 and this report was amended accordingly. The capital budget bills, HB 1216 and SB 5195, have April 1 public hearings. The Senate Capital Budget includes $415,000 for the Spokane Valley Sport Courts. While not the full amount ($800,000) we requested, if included in one of the budget proposals, it is likely (though not guaranteed) that the project will be included in the final budget. This week's legislative report also highlights several key bills including HB 1260, the document recording fees bill. This bill has passed the Senate Ways and Means Committee and was sent to the Rules Committee for second reading. ESHB 2015, creates a new councilmanic 0.10% sales tax authority for funding criminal justice and a new grant program to help recruit retain and train officers. There are several strings attached to qualify for the grant. The bill passed out of the Senate Law & Justice Committee on March 28 and potential amendments to the bill are still being discussed. The city is monitoring this bill. GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL GOVERNMENT RELATIONS City of Spokane Valley Legislative Report March 30, 2025 (Amended March 31, 2025) SESSION CUTOFF CALENDAR MAFGh ,�5 Chamber Of_QFigin D82d"Re 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 There was a flurry of budget activity this week. The Senate and House Transportation and Operating Budget proposals had public hearings and passed out of their respective committees. On Saturday, the Senate approved its proposed Operating and Transportation Budgets, as well as a package of tax and fee increases to fund Transportation. The Senate did not take up the revenue proposals that fund the Operating Budget proposal. The Senate and House Capital Budget proposals will be released on Monday, March 315t A budget overview report was sent out by GTH-GOV on March 26. Click here to view the report. Additionally, AWC developed a budget comparison chart to highlight key impacts to cities. Click here to view the chart. In addition to budget development efforts, the Legislature continues to work through bills, with the opposite chamber policy committee deadline coming up on April 2, and the opposite chamber fiscal committee cutoff quickly following on April 8. 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. GTH-GOV 1 Legislative Agenda Items Capital Budget Request: Spokane Valley Sport Courts The City has requested $800,000 from the capital budget for the construction of the sports courts at Balfour Park. The Senate Capital Budget includes $415,000 for the Spokane Valley Sport Courts, and the House Capital Budget does not include the project. Oftentimes, if one chamber has the project included, it increases the likelihood that it will be added to the final budget. Transportation Budget Request: Barker/1-90 Interchange The Barker/1-90 Interchange is currently operating at a level of service of "E or "F" during rush hour, which means Spokane Valley residents sit at a complete standstill. With the regional industrial and residential growth that has occurred and will continue, the interchange cannot withstand the influx of traffic or accommodate new development, resulting in unmanageable traffic flow and congestion. Given the state's transportation budget challenges, the City is requesting $1 million to initiate the design phase of Barker Road/1-90 Interchange, with a pending $3 million federal appropriation. The House Transportation Budget Proposal does not include new projects and therefore, does not include the funding for this project. The Senate released two proposals — one with new revenue, and one without. The Senate's "no new revenue" Transportation Budget Proposal does not include it either. However, the Senate's new revenue proposal includes a list of ro'ects that could be eligible for funding if additional revenue is raised. This list includes the Barker/1-90 Interchange. If a list of new projects is included in the final Transportation Budget, then WSDOT would be tasked with recommending how much funding is allocated to each project and in what years to the 2026 Legislature. The Senate's Transportation Budget raises new revenue, assumes a transfer of $3 billion from the Operating to Transportation Budget, and transfers the obligation to replace state-owned culverts to comply with a court mandate to the Capital Budget. Reconciling the Senate's proposal with the House's proposal, which does not include either of these components, is a significant undertaking for the remaining days of the session. Clarify Administrative Fee Collected on Document Recording Fees The City is requesting legislation to clarify that the administrative charge collected on document recording fee revenues dedicated to housing and homelessness does not exceed 10 percent and to clarify that the agency responsible for managing housing and homelessness receives the administrative revenue. At the City's request, House Bill 1260 was introduced by Rep. Suzanne Schmidt (R-4th LD), Rep. Timm Ormbsy (D-3rd LD), and Rep. Natasha Hill (D-3rd LD). The bill amends the distribution and administrative handling of document recording fee surcharge funds to enhance support for county and city homeless housing programs. This bill is a top priority for the Cities of Spokane Valley and Spokane as they are the only two cities known to be using this provision. The bill limits county administrative costs to 10 percent of the funds retained after distributing the required share to cities and clarifies how cities can receive and use their portion of the surcharge for local homeless housing programs. It also maintains the GTH-GOV public in addition to the permit applicant and public officials, It specifies that unit lot subdivision only applies to residential development and allows public pre -decision meetings and hearings for properties requiring shoreline substantial development permits. The bill has now been scheduled for a public hearing in the House Appropriations Committee. Transit -Oriented Development: House Bill 1491, sponsored by Rep. Julia Reed (D-36th LID), mandates higher -density residential and mixed -use development near major transit stops to promote transit -oriented development (TOD) and address housing shortages. The bill requires cities to adopt regulations facilitating TOD in designated "station areas," including minimum floor area ratios and affordable housing requirements. It preempts local restrictions, limits parking mandates, and provides exemptions from the State Environmental Policy Act for qualifying developments. The bill passed out of committee on March 26 with a striking amendment that updates the definition of major transit stop to exclude express bus services only or otherwise doesn't meet the definition. It requires cities to allow for greater building height and increased density in bus station areas and to build with mass timber products. 10 percent of all residential units must be workforce housing if they are family units with more than two bedrooms. The bill makes deed restrictions around MFTE tied to TOD and makes other clarifications to the program. Lastly, it requires a local government to reduce impact fees by 50 percent if a project is within a station area and claiming the MFTE program to the TOD affordability requirements. The bill has been referred to the Senate Ways & Means Committee. Miscellaneous Paid Family Leave and Small Business Support: House Bill 1213, sponsored by Rep. Liz Berry (D- 36), expands worker protections underthe PFML program while introducing new support mechanisms for small businesses. Employers with fewer than 50 employees would become eligible for grants to offset costs associated with employee leave, including $3,000 for temporary worker hiring or wage -related expenses and reimbursement for health care benefit costs up to four months. The bill reduces the minimum claim duration for PFML benefits from eight to four consecutive hours and requires employers to provide written notice of employee rights after seven consecutive leave days. It also strengthens employment restoration rights, mandates health benefit maintenance during PFML leave, and imposes compliance requirements for employers with voluntary plans. The Senate Labor & Commerce Committee held a public hearing on March 24. The Washington State Council of Firefighters, Washington State Labor Council, Washington Employment Lawyers Association, and others testified in support of the bill because it provides job protections for those employees who need to take paid leave. This legislation can ensure that underserved communities get access to necessary services and can return to work. Several stakeholders testified against the bill, including the Washington Food Industry Association, Associated General Contractors of Washington, Association of Washington Business, and others. They oppose the bill because it breaks the promises made to small businesses in previously passed legislation. Passing this bill will revoke many protections for small businesses and lead to increased costs. It was noted that this bill does not outline a feasible, sustainable path forward and that the fiscal note is a major issue. The Association of Washington Cities testified "other," with concerns for the smallest employers and the challenge of keeping positions filled. They requested an amendment to GTHI-GOV 4 public in addition to the permit applicant and public officials. It specifies that unit lot subdivision only applies to residential development and allows public pre -decision meetings and hearings for properties requiring shoreline substantial development permits. The bill has now been scheduled for a public hearing in the House Appropriations Committee. Transit -Oriented Development: House Bill 1491, sponsored by Rep. Julia Reed (D-36th LD), mandates higher -density residential and mixed -use development near major transit stops to promote transit -oriented development (TOD) and address housing shortages. The bill requires cities to adopt regulations facilitating TOD in designated "station areas," including minimum floor area ratios and affordable housing requirements. It preempts local restrictions, limits parking mandates, and provides exemptions from the State Environmental Policy Act for qualifying developments. The bill passed out of committee on March 26 with a striking amendment that updates the definition of major transit stop to exclude express bus services only or otherwise doesn't meet the definition. It requires cities to allow for greater building height and increased density in bus station areas and to build with mass timber products. 10 percent of all residential units must be workforce housing if they are family units with more than two bedrooms. The bill makes deed restrictions around MFTE tied to TOD and makes other clarifications to the program. Lastly, it requires a local government to reduce impact fees by 50 percent if a project is within a station area and claiming the MFTE program to the TOD affordability requirements, The bill has been referred to the Senate Ways & Means Committee. Miscellaneous Paid Family Leave and Small Business Support: House Bill 1213, sponsored by Rep. Liz Berry (D- 36), expands worker protections under the PFML program while introducing new support mechanisms for small businesses. Employers with fewer than 50 employees would become eligible for grants to offset costs associated with employee leave, including $3,000 for temporary worker hiring or wage -related expenses and reimbursement for health care benefit costs up to four months. The bill reduces the minimum claim duration for PFML benefits from eight to four consecutive hours and requires employers to provide written notice of employee rights after seven consecutive leave days. It also strengthens employment restoration rights, mandates health benefit maintenance during PFML leave, and imposes compliance requirements for employers with voluntary plans. The Senate Labor & Commerce Committee held a public hearing on March 24. The Washington State Council of Firefighters, Washington State Labor Council, Washington Employment Lawyers Association, and others testified in support of the bill because it provides job protections for those employees who need to take paid leave. This legislation can ensure that underserved communities get access to necessary services and can return to work. Several stakeholders testified against the bill, including the Washington Food Industry Association, Associated General Contractors of Washington, Association of Washington Business, and others. They oppose the bill because it breaks the promises made to small businesses in previously passed legislation. Passing this bill will revoke many protections for small businesses and lead to increased costs. It was noted that this bill does not outline a feasible, sustainable path forward and that the fiscal note is a major issue. The Association of Washington Cities testified "other," with concerns for the smallest employers and the challenge of keeping positions filled. They requested an amendment to GTH-GOV 4 expand exemptions. The City signed in as "other" on the bill in alignment with AWC's testimony. On March 28, the bill passed out of committee with amendments. Most notably, the bill removes grant availability for employers with fewer than 50 employees. Clean Buildings Compliance: House Bill 1543, sponsored by Rep. Beth Doglio (D-22nd LD), seeks to expand compliance options for Washington State's clean buildings performance standards by introducing alternative metrics and providing greater flexibility for building owners. The bill allows the Department of Commerce to develop alternative metrics for energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, alongside existing energy use intensity (EUI) targets, and provides conditional compliance pathways for building owners who meet these alternative metrics. It also permits extensions for compliance deadlines under extenuating circumstances, ensures that energy efficiency requirements do not compromise the integrity of historic buildings, and prioritizes campus district energy systems that achieve greater energy savings. The bill passed out of the Senate Environment, Energy & Technology Committee on March 28 with several changes. It expands the exemption under the standard for covered buildings to include spaces with nonexempt occupancy classifications that are within a manufacturing or industrial building. It also clarifies the exemption from the standard for financial hardships, increases an extension approved by Commerce valid for two years beyond the compliance date, and clarifies that penalties incurred for noncompliance cannot be passed down to tenants. Permitting: Senate Bill 5611, sponsored by Sen. Jesse Salomon (D-32nd LD), expands the definition of "commercially zoned property" for the purposes of binding site plans to include areas permitting multifamily residential uses, provides that a city can extend project permit deadlines for any reasonable and certain period of time if it is agreed upon in writing, and states that a city cannot deny project permits for certain residential housing units. A public hearing was held in the House Local Government Committee on March 26, however, no one testified. The City signed in opposition to the bill. The bill is scheduled to be voted out of committee on April 1. Mandatory Hearing Examiners: Senate Bill 5719, sponsored by Sen. Jesse Salomon (D-32nd LD), requires all counties, cities, and code cities with a population over 2,000 to adopt a hearing examiner system for quasi-judicial land use decisions, such as plat approvals, variances, and conditional uses. The bill makes hearing examiner decisions final and appealable only through the courts under the Land Use Petition Act. It also mandates that hearing examiner decisions align with comprehensive plans and clear, objective development regulations, and requires written findings and conclusions for each decision. The bill passed out of the House Local Government Committee on March 26 with a striking amendment that removes plat approval as an application that must be heard by a hearing examiner, allows for local legislative authority rather than a planning director or other qualified staff to take on hearing examiner duties, requires legislative authority acting in lieu of a hearing examiner to provide a written statement explaining the good faith effort to secure a hearing examiner, and adds that a legislative authority can only be used in place of a hearing examiner until one is appointed or services retained. Lastly, the bill exempts counties planning under the Growth Management Act from adopting a hearing examiner system. GTH-GOV 5 Public Safety & Behavioral Health Misdemeanor Charge Dismissal Framework: House Bill 1113, sponsored by Rep. Darya Farivar (D-46th LD), allows courts to dismiss simple or gross misdemeanor charges if defendants waive their right to a speedy trial and comply with court -ordered conditions for up to 12 months. The bill received a public hearing in the Senate Law & Justice Committee on March 24. The City signed in opposition to the bill. During the hearing, the King County Department of Public Defense, Washington State Council of Firefighters, Washington Defender Association, and others testified in support of the bill because the current system is not effective; there continue to be individuals cycling through the system repeatedly. This bill would aid those who need services and reduce strain on the courts and first responders. City of Federal Way, Washington Association of Sheriffs & Police Chiefs, Association of Washington Cities, and others testified in opposition to the bill because removing prosecutors from the process and allowing judges to grant authority over objection disrupts the separation and balance of powers. District & Municipal Court Judges' Association testified "other," stating that, even with the work done on the language thus far, this legislation will increase court hours and make it more difficult for judges to maintain a neutral position. Public Safety Funding: 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 compliance with state training mandates, vacancy disclosures, and adherence to model policies. The bill also authorizes cities and counties to each impose a .01 sales tax increase to fund public safety. A public hearing was held in the Senate Law & Justice Committee on March 25. The City signed in support of the bill. The City of Seattle, City of Issaquah, Association of Washington Cities, and many others testified in support of the bill because it is a state investment into public safety systems that allows local jurisdictions the flexibility to modify the funding according to their own unique needs. Washington Citizens Against Unfair Taxes testified against the bill, stating that increased taxes lower the affordability of residing in the state. Transportation/Public Works Public Works Bidding: House Bill 1549, sponsored by Rep. Mary Fosse (D-38), modifies responsible bidder criteria for public works projects to enhance transparency and compliance. The bill requires bidders on projects with apprentice utilization requirements to submit an apprentice utilization plan before receiving a notice to proceed, with a standardized template developed by the Department of Labor and Industries (L&I). It mandates that bidders either have recent public works experience without violations or complete training on public works and prevailing wage requirements, with the removal of exemptions for bidders with extensive prior experience. L&I must publish compliance records and apprentice utilization plans on its website and provide tools for contracting agencies to verify bidder compliance using publicly available information. The Senate State Government, Tribal Affairs & Elections Committee held a public hearing on the bill on March 25. The City signed in support of the bill. During the GTH-GOV 6 hearing, the Washington State Building & Construction Trades Council, Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, and Cement Masons & Plasterers testified before the Committee in support of the bill because this will expand opportunities to match apprentices with contractors and promote a pathway of workforce development. Thurston Economic Development Council testified "other," with the suggestion to include technical assistance and training to reduce the learning curve for contractors. There was no testimony in opposition. The bill passed out of committee on March 28. Design -Build Bonding: House Bill 1967, sponsored by Rep. Janice Zahn (D-41st LD), modifies bonding requirements for design -build public works contracts in Washington State. The bill limits performance and payment bond requirements to the construction portion of the contract, exempting design, preconstruction, finance, maintenance, operations, and other non - construction -related services from the bonding obligation. It also specifies that the bond amount must be no less than the value of the construction portion of the contract, ensuring clarity and focus on construction -related bonding. A public hearing was held in the Senate State Government, Tribal Affairs & Elections Committee on March 25. The City signed in support of the bill. During the hearing, Energy Northwest testified in support of the bill because it is a technical fix piece of legislation that recalibrates the bonding process and invites broader participation through the design stages while bringing significant cost savings. There was no testimony in opposition. The bill passed out of committee on March 28. 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 House Labor & Workplace Standards Committee on March 25. During the hearing, the Washington State Building & Construction Trades Council, Washington & Northern Idaho District Council of Laborers, and others testified in support of the bill because it allows infrastructure workers' wages to be adjusted over the course of a project to keep pace with cost of living adjustments and inflation. The Associated General Contractors of Washington and Associated Builders and Contractors Inland Pacific Chapter testified against the bill, sharing that they believe this legislation is unnecessary. They requested that if this legislation moves forward, a change order amendment be included. The Department of Labor & Industries testified "other," with the reminder that the prevailing wage is the minimum rate required. The bill passed out of committee on March 28. GTH-GOV 7 01TY OF Sp°kane �, j April 2, 2025 The Honorable Patty Murray 154 Russell Senate Office Building United States Senate Washington DC 20510 CITY COUNCIL 10210 E Sprague Ave I Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Phone (509) 720-5000 1 Fax (509) 720-5075 www.spokanevalleywa.gov Subject: Support for Orchard Vista ECEAP Childcare Center Dear Senator Murray, The City of Spokane Valley is pleased to support the Orchard Vista ECEAP Childcare Center. This facility is in the heart of Spokane Valley at 10003 E 41" Avenue. I understand that Spokane Housing Authority has requested $1.8M FY2026 CDS funding to help construct this childcare center. These funds will leverage Spokane Housing Authority's funds invested in the project. I encourage you to support this project's request for federal funding. Quality and affordable early childhood education and care play a vital role in supporting families, a thriving workforce, and economic growth in our city. Orchard Vista ensures that working parents can remain engaged in their careers, confident that their children are in a safe, nurturing space. This childcare center will be co -located with the housing authority's new 240-unit Orchard Vista affordable rental housing project which will serve families below 60% AMI. This project is a welcome expansion of services and will provide an ongoing benefit for families in Spokane Valley. Thank you for your attention and support to this important matter. Sincerely, Pam Haley, Mayor On Behalf of the City of Spokane Valley Council Mard Patterson From: Candace Martin <candacemartin626@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 11:49 AM To: Council Meeting Public Comment Subject: Public Comment on Resolution 25-003, April 1, 2025 Meeting [EXTERNAL] This email originated outside the City of Spokane Valley. Always use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Good morning, My name is Candace Martin. I live in Spokane Valley, Washington. My written public comment is for the action item Resolution 25-003: Declaring the City Not a sanctuary city, the 4th action item. This action item is for the April 1, 2025 meeting at 6 pm. I am concerned about the action item associated with Resolution 25-003: Declaring the City Not a sanctuary city. As a Washington resident who lives in Spokane Valley, I am not comfortable with the city passing a resolution to go against the state's Keep Washington Working Act, a law passed in 2019. Keep Washington Working is a state law. If Spokane Valley doesn't comply, there could be civil liabilities, with costs borne by Spokane Valley taxpayers. In this day and age, with costs rising for us all, taxpayers do not need more expenses because of state law violations. I am opposed to this resolution and writing in support of following the state law regarding this matter. Sincerely, Candace Martin Mard Patterson From: Tobias Cain <tobiasjcain@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 1:12 PM To: Council Meeting Public Comment Subject: Re: Council Meeting Comment - 4/1/25 [EXTERNAL] This email originated outside the City of Spokane Valley. Always use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. My apologies, 10.92.160 was quoted from the agenda, but from what I can tell it should be RCW 10.93.160. On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 1:07 PM Tobias Cain <tobiasjcain@)gmail.com> wrote: 1. April 1 st, 2025 2. Tobias Cain 3. Spokane Valley 4. Resolution 25-003 Dear Members of the Spokane Valley City Council, I am writing to express my deep frustration and opposition to the proposed resolution reaffirming Spokane Valley's stance against being a sanctuary city. This measure is not only a wasteful use of city resources but also a shameful affront to fundamental human rights. First and foremost, this resolution serves no practical purpose other than to needlessly stoke division and fear. Washington State law, through RCW 10.92.160, has already clarified the limitations on local law enforcement regarding immigration enforcement. Any effort by the City Council to reassert a defunct policy is a pointless exercise in political posturing that does nothing to improve the safety, well- being, or prosperity of Spokane Valley residents. Instead of focusing on real issues such as public safety, infrastructure improvements, or economic development, the Council is choosing to waste time and taxpayer dollars on a redundant and legally dubious measure. Furthermore, this resolution places undue burdens on our law enforcement officers, who should be focused on protecting the community from crime —not acting as extensions of federal immigration agencies. The role of local police is to foster trust within the community, ensuring that all residents, regardless of immigration status, feel safe reporting crimes or seeking assistance when needed. By directing officers to engage in immigration -related inquiries, the Council risks eroding that trust, making our neighborhoods less safe as individuals may hesitate to cooperate with law enforcement. Additionally, the resources required to determine legal status and avoid costly lawsuits are extensive, which is precisetywhy Washington State law leaves immigration enforcement to federal authorities. By pushing this unnecessary resolution, the City Council risks entangling Spokane Valley in expensive legal battles while doing little to address real concerns. Worse still, this measure does not just harm undocumented individuals. It spreads fear and division among legal citizens, creating an atmosphere of suspicion and hostility at an unacceptably high cost. It is both disheartening and enraging that, rather than addressing meaningful city priorities, the Council is choosing to revisit an outdated and discriminatory resolution that serves no benefit to Spokane Valley residents. I urge you to abandon this unnecessary and harmful measure and refocus on policies that genuinely improve the lives of all members of our community. Tobias Cain Mard Patterson From: Curly Poodle <curliepoodles@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 9:11 AM To: Council Meeting Public Comment Subject: I do not support Sanctuary city status [EXTERNAL] This email originated outside the City of Spokane Valley. Always use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. I do not support Spokane Valley being a Sanctuary city. Please arrest illegals and support ICE, border patrol and the police. NO SANCTUARY CITY. CAROLEE SPRADLEY 111613E10THAVE SPOKANE VALLEY WA 99206 509-499-8792 Marci Patterson From: Suzann Girtz <girtzs@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 10:50 AM To: Council Meeting Public Comment Subject: Public comment 4-1 [EXTERNAL] This email originated outside the City of Spokane Valley. Always use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. • Date of the meeting that you are providing comment. 4/1 • Agenda Item Topic. Following state law regarding non/citizens of US • Your First and Last Name. Suzann Girtz • City of Residence. Spokane Valley • Your Comment: My perception is that this council prioritizes fiscal responsibility when possible. Actively choosing to go outside of state law and promoting actions that will likely come back around in the form of lawsuits seems irresponsible, at best. This will cost the citizens of the Valley in many ways, and potentially in the millions of dollars. I do not support flaunting the law and think it's a dangerous precedent. If you want to behave differently, change the state law FIRST. Sent from myiPhone Mard Patterson From: darlene ward <renobunker@me.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 12:37 PM To: Council Meeting Public Comment Subject: Comment on resolution 25-003 April 1 [EXTERNAL] This email originated outside the City of Spokane Valley. Always use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. At tonight meeting, April 1 6:00 pm item 4. On agenda. 4. Resolution 25-003: Declaring the City is not a sanctuary city — Erik Lamb [public comment opportunity] I VOTE. Darlene Ward. Resident of Spokane Valley. Please hear my comment regarding item 4, which would result in our local police being used with ICE. Please do NOT vote against our citizens. This is an act of racism and discrimination. America, land of the free! There should be SANCTUARY. Thanks foryourtime. Darlene Ward 4. Resolution 25-003: Declaring the City is not a sanctuary city — Erik Lamb [public comment opportunity] i Mard Patterson From: Danielle Casilac <dni_18@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 12:53 PM To: Council Meeting Public Comment Subject: Comments for meeting on 04/01/2025 [EXTERNAL] This email originated outside the City of Spokane Valley. Always use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. 04/01/2025 Danielle Casilac Spokane Valley Resolution No. 25-003 A Resolution of the city of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, Declaring the city of Spokane Valley is NOT a sanctuary city, repealing and replacing resolution No. 16-001, and other matters relating thereto, I would like to re -affirm that Spokane Valley is NOT a sanctuary city. It is not in the best interest for Spokane Valley to become a sanctuary city. You only need to look at every city that has decided to become a sanctuary city to see the harm and destruction that it has allowed to happen. I do not want to see that happen here. Thank You. Marci Patterson From: Justin Monk <justinmonkseo@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 12:54 PM To: Council Meeting Public Comment Subject: Spokane Valley as a Sanctuary City [EXTERNAL] This email originated outside the City of Spokane Valley. Always use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. I am not ok exposing our city to this idea. Sanctuary cities make it more dangerous to live and even occupy the city. Where did this idea come from? Most of us hard working taxpayers do not support it. Justin Monk 509-808-0787 Marci Patterson From: Carol Landa-McVicker <cj_99224@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 2:10 PM To: Council Meeting Public Comment Subject: Resolution 25-003 [EXTERNAL] This email originated outside the City of Spokane Valley. Always use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Meeting Date: April 1, 2025 Name: Carol Landa-McVicker City of Residence: Spokane Agenda Item: 25-003 Although I am not currently a resident of Spokane Valley, I grew up in Opportunity where my grandparents, Sydney and Isabelle Smith were early pioneers on the property that is now the Opportunity Shopping Center. My grandfather was one of the original founders of the Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce. My father, Carlos Landa, an immigrant from Mexico, was a long time Honorary Mexican Counsul in the Valley. He had to be naturalized as an American citizen in the early 50s in order to buy a house. At the time, my mother, who was raised in Opportunity and was the last treasurer of the Opportunity Township, couldn't buy a house because she was a "woman". My parents helped to grow the Valley by starting the Spokane Valley Savings and Loan (now Chase Bank) on the corner of Sprague Ave and Perring. My family, as you can see, has a long and proud history with the Spokane Valley, I oppose this resolution because I believe immigrants are foundational to our community and the health of our economy. I do not believe local law enforcement should be asked to break the laws that have been enacted by our duly elected legislators and local officials. As long as ICE continues to arrest and deport immigrants including those with legal status e.g. those with green cards and student visas. who have committed no violent crimes, I believe we need to offer protection as provided by our Constitution. Until the Federal government stops accusing every immigrant and refugee as "illegal" and provides not only due process, but also an open and fair pathway to citizenship, we should continue to fight for their rights. Weakening the rights of anyone protected by the Constitution threatens all of us. According to the LWV of Washington state's 2025 study, Welcoming Immigrants to Washington, "just over 15% of Washingtonians are immigrants. Immigrant households earned about $73 billion in 2022 in Washington. They paid about $20 billion in taxes, $14.7 billion in federal taxes, including $6.5 billion in social security and $2 billion in Medicare, and $5.5 billion in state and local taxes (American Immigration Council 2024). In the workforce, nearly one in five workers in Washington are immigrants. 77% of all agricultural workers in the state are immigrants, 51.3% of all software developers are immigrants, 48.9% of all maids and housekeepers are immigrants and 36.4% of all health aids in the state are immigrants. Immigrants are also more likely than native-born to start businesses; over one in five entrepreneurs in Washington is an immigrant and they generated $3 billion a year in business income." Like my father, immigrants are vital to the economic properity and future of our community. I urge you to uphold the Constitution and vote not on this dangerous resolution. Thank you. Carol Landa-McVicker 2705 E Mount Vernon Dr Spokane, WA 99223 (509) 534-3536 h (509) 435-1506 c "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." (Martin Luther King, Jr.) Marci Patterson From: Judy Rohrer <judy.rohrer@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 12:29 PM To: Council Meeting Public Comment Subject: Testimony for Resolution 25-003 [EXTERNAL] This email originated outside the City of Spokane Valley. Always use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Testimony for Spokane Valley City Council Meeting, April 1, 2025 Action Item 4: Resolution 25-003: Declaring the City is not a sanctuary city Judy Rohrer, PhD, Spokane WA I am strongly opposed to Resolution 25-003. This resolution is a clear violation of the Keep Washington Working Act. The State Attorney General's office directs that "KWW restricts the extent to which local law enforcement agencies (LEAS) may participate in the enforcement of federal immigration laws." Simply declaring yourself a hostile (non - sanctuary) city, does not allow you to violate state law. There are only negative outcomes that will come from passage of this resolution: legal challenges; expense to the city; rupture of community trust; instability to city's workforce. I am a faculty member at Eastern Washington University. Many Eastern students live in Spokane Valley. Furthermore, many Spokane residents spend time in Spokane Valley, so this resolution is of concern to us. Many of our students live in mixed status families, are on DACA, or have friends in one of these situations. This resolution will increase the fear they are already living with and will potentially tear their families apart. I urge you to vote no. Marci Patterson From: Annica Eagle <annicaeagle@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 3:31 PM To: Council Meeting Public Comment Subject: Testimony for Spokane Valley City Council Meeting, April 1, 2025 [EXTERNAL] This email originated outside the City of Spokane Valley. Always use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Action Item 4: Resolution 25-003: Declaring the City is not a sanctuary city Annica Eagle, Spokane, WA I strongly oppose Resolution 25-003. Keep Washington Working Act is a crucial and necessary law, on the books since 2019. It is Washington state law, and it is illegal (and unconscionable) to disregard it. There would be real, terrible, and irrevocable consequences that would come from the passage of this resolution: families would be torn apart, businesses would lose workers, and terror would run through our communities (not to mention the legal cases that would be drawn against the City of Spokane Valley). The instability and inhumanity of the callousness of this resolution should have no place here. The people this would hurt the most are our neighbors, our friends, our loved ones, our coworkers. They are as much a part of the fabric of our community as you are, and they deserve the right thing here: honor, follow, and respect the Keep Washington Working Act. Thankyou Annica Eagle annicaeagleCcD-gmail.com Mard Patterson From: Vincent Siragusa <vcsiragusa@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 3:47 PM To: Council Meeting Public Comment Subject: Keep Washington Working Act [EXTERNAL] This email originated outside the City of Spokane Valley. Always use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Members of the Spokane Valley City Council, My name is Vincent Siragusa and I reside within the city of Spokane in the East Central neighborhood on the border between our two cities. I am writing today in support of Spokane Valley maintaining its commitment to the I<eep Washington Working Act. This state law was the result of a bi- partisan effort to ensure that workers, integral to the continued success of our state's economy, would be respected and treated with dignity. While I do believe that it is important to uphold the rule of law, I think it is even more important from a community perspective that residents feel our institutions are there to serve and support them. In flouting the guidelines set forth in the Keep Washington Working Act, not only is the city of Spokane Valley showing that they do not respect our state laws, but they are also signaling that institutions such as the Spokane Valley Police Department are no longer pillars of community safety, order, and the law. The department instead is a political weapon. I also believe that it is in the Spokane Valleys right to choose how they approach immigration within your city. However, again, I simply urge you to accomplish that tasl<through more thoughtful and sustainable methods which do not undermine our laws, erode public trust, and respects the dignity and worth of our neighbors and fellow human beings. Warmly, Vincent Siragusa Marci Patterson From: Corinna Bockstruck <corinna.bockstruck@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 3:49 PM To: Council Meeting Public Comment Subject: Public comment [EXTERNAL] This email originated outside the City of Spokane Valley. Always use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Hello, I am writing to submit public comment for the April 1, 2025 city council meeting. My comment is in regards to Action Item #4: Resolution 25-003: Declaring the City is not a sanctuary city. I believe this resolution- which leaves the city open to expensive lawsuits due to the fact that it contradicts and completely disregards state law- is a terrible move that endangers the community and erodes all of our rights. I urge all council members to vote against the resolution. Some points I hope you will consider in your decision: 1. Unlawful presence in the US in and of itself is a civil infraction, not a crime. 2. Seeking asylum is legal under US and international law. 3. Trump has halted the entrance of refugees, which is a legal pathway and includes incredibly extensive vetting of individuals before they enter our country. 4. We need comprehensive legislative immigration reform that provides reasonable, fair, humane legal pathways- that often don't currently exist depending on your country of origin. 5. The current administration is revoking legal status for people who did come here the "right" way. 6. ICE is targeting legal immigrants who have exercised their free speech rights in ways Trump doesn't like. 7. Trump is violating the rights of immigrants and violating judicial orders to send people to prison in El Salvador without charge, trial, conviction, or even verifying their immigration status. Due process is a critical constitutional right that is foundational to our democracy. 8. Just recently in Spokane Valley, ICE violated the rights of residents, including a PREGNANT US citizen. 9. Many families are made up of folks with different immigration statuses, so deportation often means ripping parents away from their children (and leaving their children in need of additional services) 10. Immigrants pay taxes, power our economy, and are our neighbors, friends, and loved ones. This hateful and wrongheaded move is a disgusting attempt to appease the rapist convicted felon who currently occupies the Oval Office, and will only negatively impact the community. Thankyou, Corinna Donnerberg Spokane, WA Mard Patterson From: Dolores <kuedee@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 3:53 PM To: Council Meeting Public Comment Subject: Testimony for council meeting April 2,2025 [EXTERNAL] This email originated outside the City of Spokane Valley. Always use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Re: Action 4 Resolution 25-003 declaring the city is not a sanctuary city Dolores Kueffler, Spokane Valley I am strongly opposed to resolution number 25-003. Our Washington laws around immigrant rights were built out of an agreement of respect for all individuals and the right to due process. It is a direct violation of the state of Washington's Keep WA Working Act. Simply declaring ourselves a non -sanctuary city puts us in direct violation of our state law, setting ourselves up for lots of expense and legal challenges. I personally do not want to see my tax dollars spent in this way. Dolores Kueffler Sent from my iPhone Marci Patterson From: Tricia Petek <triciapetek@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 3:59 PM To: Council Meeting Public Comment Subject: Public comment for April 1, 2025 Council Meeting [EXTERNAL] This email originated outside the City of Spokane Valley. Always use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Good evening, I'm submitting my comments for the April 1, 2025, Council Meeting. My name is Tricia Petek, and I reside in Spokane Valley. My comment is in regards to the Council's Resolution 25-003: Declaring the City is not a sanctuary city. I would urge the Council to reject this resolution. Recently, the federal government has been breaking the law and violating the Constitution in attempts to remove people from the United States. These removal efforts have provided no due process under the law, which each individual is entitled to under the US Constitution, regardless of legal status. These actions are a dangerous precedent that threaten everyone's rights. Our local law enforcement should be using its resources and its personnel to protect the fine people of our community, but should not be assisting unlawful efforts by federal law enforcement to kidnap and disappear people without due process. When anyone is deprived of due process, none of us are protected by due process. Please reject this resolution and preserve our local law enforcement's ability to protect our community without interference from federal law enforcement. Thank you for your time and consideration on this important and urgent matter. Respectfully, Tricia Petek trici_ap_e_tek@gm_aiL.com (406) 459 -1219 4/��2s Remy Good evening council, my name is Schade Jameson -David Maghan I'm a resident of the valley, I live off Sullivan and I'm here to speak against this proposal. I recognize that this council action may be popular with Valley Residents. It could also be considered a "no-brainer" by many who hold the view that Illegally Residing in the United States is a crime, and laws which regulate crime should be enforced. That view is sensible to me, but what this thinking does not consider is that the way we enforce our laws matters. Not just in terms of morality, others can speak to that issue far better than I. The way we enforce our laws also matters in financial and practical ways. I concede that the resolution itself is bland and I don't believe it substantially changes existing policy. I do believe there may be negative costs associated with the way this resolution is implemented that are not considered in the Request for Council Action form and I hope to encourage the council to carefully consider the impact of this resolution. The United States and Spokane Valley have a public safety interest in adopting and enforcing sensible immigration policies. There are situations where it is sensible for one agency or one level of government to participate in an enforcement action alone. It would be silly for Federal Agents start conducting traffic stops on Sprague Avenue and I believe it would also be silly for SVPD to unnecessarily involve itself in immigration enforcement actions. Enforcement actions are currently being carried out in Spokane Valley without the use of SVPD resources. That is a blessing. We know that law enforcement hours are limited. Earlier in tonight's meeting you discussed a tax proposal to increase the amount of resources in our community including patrol officers, mental health and sexual assault supports, and broad salary increases that keep our community competitive. I think that proposal is fantastic and that it's the kind of action I want to see this council take. This action however could threaten the availability of those same resources in our community. The risks and cost associated with these enforcement activity in the Valley is borne by the federal government with no implications on the city budget. Spokane Valley Police Officers are not diverted from local emergencies, taken off patrol routes, or delayed in their regular duties to enforce immigration rules. Additionally, by not being at the scene of these enforcement activities SVPD officers are shielded from litigation, the costs of which can be immense, and are currently burdened entirely on the Federal Government. Local Law Enforcement should enforce Local and State laws, taking on federal enforcement duties only when there is a pressing need to do so. That's my time, Thank you. \ � / 7 � � :� * IN MEMORY OF m Contact information: Mike Dolan Email: dolan.mike.s@gmail.com Cell: 509-499-6771 Property Taxes are Too Low... Seriously? Washingtonians pay $6,220 per person a year in state & local taxes. That is 13th highest in the country, according to our state Department of Revenue, exceeding the median state (New Hampshire) by over $1,000 per person. What about our neighboring states? • Oregon: $5,234 (nearly $1,000 per person less) Idaho: $4,164 (over $2,000 per person less) A decade ago, we ranked 22nd highest in the country, much closer to the median tax burden. Washington ranks 5th-worst in the country in housing affordability, a metric that compares median incomes to the mortgage for a median -priced home. This is most certainly a direct corollary to why our state also ranks in the bottom quartile of all states in homeownership (65%). Adding more costs will only make homeownership more unaffordable and reduce homeownership opportunities. This is the wrong direction. Title Spokane Valley city manager State Governor Seattle city manager Mayor of Spokane Annualpay $265,000 $ 234,275 (effective 7/1/2026) $161,197 $179,148 Average city manager pay is from 130K to 140K Tacoma is an outlier at over 300K and is the highest paid position in the state. The mayor of Tacoma makes over 11 K TAX FOUNDATION Taxes In Washington Washington Tax Rates, Collections, and Burdens How does Washington's tax code compare? Washington does not have a typical individual income tax but does levy a 7_0 percent tax on capital gains income. Washington does not have a corporate income tax but doe levy a state gross receipts tax. Washington has a 6.50 percent state sales tax rate and an average combined state and local sales tax rate of 9.38 percent. Washington has a 0.76 percent effective property tax rate on owner -occupied housing value. Washington has an estate tax. Washington has a 52.8 cents per gallon gas tax rate and a $3.025 cigarette excise tax rate. The State of Washington collects $6,644 in state and local tax collections per capita. Washingto has $11,632 in state and local debt per capita and has a 103 percent funded ratio of public pension plans. Washington's tax system ranks 45th overall on the 2025 State Tax Competitiveness Index. Each state's tax code is a multifaceted system with many moving parts, and Washington is no exception. The first step towards understanding Washington's tax code is knowing the basics. How does Washington State collect tax revenue? Click the tabs below to learn more! You can also explore our state tax maps, which are compiled from our annual publication, Facts & Figures 2024: How Does Your State Compare? SE-E RELATED ARTICLES INDIVIDUAL TAXES BUSINESS TAXES SALES TAXES PROPERTY TAXES Top Individual Income Tax Rate --I I I- Inc vas f r SECURITY CONSULTANT CONCLUSSION Objective: Generally summarize the interview, then answer the following questions: 1. Were there any leading questions in the interview? 2. Would this interview be direct evidence that CM Merkel bullied staff? 3. Would the interview be direct evidence of CM Merkel creating a hostile work environment? 4. Would this interview be direct evidence that CM Merkel Harassed staff? 5. Is there direct evidence of bias in the interview? General Summary of the Interview This interview was conducted with a safety and security consultant hired by the City of Spokane Valley to assess the workplace safety of City Hall. The consultant conducted a physical site assessment and facilitated an employee discussion focused on workplace safety concerns. During the meeting, employees raised several concerns, with the most notable being fears about an active shooter incident, unauthorized access to the facility, and a "volatile internal threat" described as a newly elected council member. The interview revealed vague and unsubstantiated concerns about the council member, including fears regarding their behavior and their supporters. These concerns were not supported by specific examples or incidents, and the discussion was held in an open, public area, which may have impacted participants' candor. Answers to the Questions 1. Were there any leading questions in the interview? Yes, there were leading elements in the interview: • Reinforcing Employee Fears: The interviewer repeatedly sought to explore and validate vague fears about the council member without probing the lack of specific examples or objective evidence. • Focus on Speculative Concerns: Questions about firearms and the council member's "volatile behavior" were emphasized despite the lack of substantiated incidents to support these fears. • Assumptions of Threats: The interviewer framed the discussion as if the council member posed a legitimate threat, reinforcing the narrative of the employees without challenging the basis of their concerns. 2. Would this interview be direct evidence that CM Merkel bullied staff? No, this interview does not provide direct evidence of bullying: • No Specific Incidents Cited: While employees described the council member as a "volatile internal threat," no specific examples of bullying behavior were provided. • Unfounded Generalizations: The concerns raised about CM Merkel's behavior were speculative and based on general impressions rather than documented incidents of bullying. 3. Would the interview be direct evidence of CM Merkel creating a hostile work environment? No, the interview does not provide direct evidence of a hostile work environment: • Vague and Indirect Concerns: The description of CM Merkel as "volatile" and fears about his supporters lacked specificity and were not tied to direct actions that would constitute creating a hostile environment. • Public Meetings and Supporters: Concerns about CM Merkel's supporters attending public meetings were speculative and not evidence of a hostile work environment. 4. Would this interview be direct evidence that CM Merkel harassed staff? No, this interview does not provide direct evidence of harassment: • No Concrete Examples: The consultant's interview notes revealed no detailed incidents of harassment by CM Merkel. • Generalized Fear Without Basis: The employee concerns about the council member being a threat were speculative and unsupported by documented incidents of harassment. 5. Is there direct evidence of bias in the interview? Yes, there is direct evidence of bias in the interview: • Unsubstantiated Claims Treated as Fact: The consultant accepted and reported generalized employee fears about the council member without demanding specific examples or corroboration. • Leading the Narrative: The framing of the council member as a "volatile internal threat" reflects a biased narrative that assumes wrongdoing without evidence. • Focus on Speculative Threats: Questions about firearm policies and hypothetical scenarios involving the council member and their supporters further suggest an agenda to frame the council member as a safety risk. Evidence of a Staff Conspiracy Against Merkel There are indications of coordinated efforts by staff to portray CM Merkel negatively: • Unsubstantiated Allegations: Employees collectively described the council member as a "volatile internal threat" without citing specific incidents, raising questions about whether this narrative was pre -coordinated. Exaggerated Fears: The characterization of a newly elected council member —who interacted with thousands of households during the election —as a potential safety threat is baseless and suggests an intent to discredit Merkel. • Focus on Firearms: The employees' unsolicited inquiry into firearm policies further supports a coordinated effort to escalate concerns about the council member to extreme and unfounded levels. Ridiculousness of the Concerns • Publicly Elected Official: It is unreasonable to describe an elected council member who engaged extensively with the community as a "volatile internal threat." • Baseless Firearm Concerns: Speculation about the council member or their supporters bringing firearms into City Hall reflects a disproportionate and unsubstantiated fear campaign. • Vague Allegations in a Public Setting: The meeting's open setting likely hindered candid discussions but also suggests that employees were'comfortable raising broad and speculative allegations without fear of scrutiny, Conclusion This interview lacks direct evidence to substantiate allegations of bullying, harassment, or a hostile work environment caused by CM Merkel. The concerns raised by staff appear exaggerated, speculative, and potentially coordinated to discredit the council member. The focus on speculative safety threats, such as firearm concerns, underscores the implausibility of the allegations and raises significant questions about the integrity and motivation of the staff's narrative REPORT ON FIRST INTERVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT, 21 pages Objective: Generally summarize the interview, then answer the following questions: 1. Were there any leading questions in the interview? 2. Would this interview be direct evidence that CM Merkel bullied staff? 3. Would the interview be direct evidence of CM Merkel creating a hostile work environment? 4. Would this interview be direct evidence that CM Merkel Harassed staff? 5. Is there direct evidence of bias in the interview? General Summary of the Interview The interview outlines allegations from a city staff member against Council Member (CM) Al Merkel regarding his behavior in council meetings, interactions with city staff, and perceived intimidation. The interviewee expressed discomfort and recounted specific incidents involving Merkel and his associates, alleging disrespectful, disruptive, and intimidating behavior. The interview also highlighted broader interactions with Merkel's supporters and concerns about coordinated attempts to question the interviewee's role and presence at city meetings. Key points: - The interviewee described feeling targeted and intimidated by Merkel's associates, who reportedly questioned her role at the city and commented on her appearance. - Allegations included Merkel being critical of city staff, speaking negatively about them in public forums, and creating discomfort for the interviewee and others in the workplace. - The interviewee shared instances where she.felt the need to "hide" from Merkel and his associates to avoid confrontations. • There are implications of a broader network of associates, including Mike Dolan, Dan Allison, and Bob West, who were alleged to be aligned with Merkel in these activities. Answers to the Questions 1. Were there any leading questions in the interview? Yes, there were leading questions: - The interviewer framed questions to prompt specific responses, such as asking about "disrespectful or abusive behaviors" and whether the interviewee felt intimidated. - Questions about interactions with Merkel and his associates were often phrased to elicit descriptions of negative experiences or implied misconduct. 2. Would this interview be direct evidence that CM Merkel bullied staff? No, this interview does not constitute direct evidence of bullying: - Bullying requires clear, repeated, and targeted actions intended to harm or intimidate. While the interviewee described discomfort and perceived disrespect, these accounts are anecdotal and subjective. - The allegations lack corroborating evidence, such as documentation or witness accounts, that show a deliberate pattern of bullying. 3. Would the interview be direct evidence of CM Merkel creating a hostile work environment? No, the interview does not provide direct evidence of a hostile work environment: - A hostile work environment legally requires severe or pervasive conduct based on protected characteristics or behavior that substantially interferes with work. - The described incidents are primarily subjective perceptions of discomfort rather than systemic or pervasive behavior that meets the legal threshold. 4. Would this interview be direct evidence that CM Merkel harassed staff? No, this interview does not offer direct evidence of harassment: • Harassment requires evidence of discriminatory or targeted conduct based on protected characteristics or actions that create an intimidating or offensive environment. • The interviewee's descriptions reflect interpersonal conflict and allegations of unprofessional behavior but do not rise to the level of legal harassment. 5. Is there direct evidence of bias in the interview? Yes, there are indicators of bias: • Preconceived Notions: The interviewee expressed strong negative opinions about Merkel, such as calling his behavior "entitled" and describing his supporters as disruptive. These perceptions suggest a preexisting bias against Merkel and his associates. • Coordinated Staff Meetings: The interviewee revealed weekly meetings with the mayor and other staff to prepare responses to anticipated behavior from Merkel during council meetings. These meetings suggest a potential coordinated effort to counteract Merkel, raising ethical concerns if city resources were used for political purposes. • Reliance on Anecdotes: Much of the interview relied on hearsay, second-hand accounts, or subjective interpretations, such as claims that Merkel's supporters intentionally disrupted meetings. Evidence of Broader Staff Conspiracy The interview reveals potential signs of a coordinated effort involving city staff, including City Manager John Hohman, to counter Merkel: 1. Weekly Parliamentary Meetings: Staff and the mayor reportedly held regular meetings to prepare for council interactions, anticipating and strategizing against Merkel's behavior. This use of city resources raises ethical concerns, especially if political motives were involved. 2. Directed Actions by Hohman: The city manager instructed the interviewee to avoid being seen by Merkel's associates and allegedly facilitated meetings to address concerns about Merkel. 3. Supporter Involvement: Merkel's associates, including Mike Dolan, Dan Allison, and Bob West, were described as inquiring about staff roles and allegedly attempting to intimidate or question the interviewee's presence. However, no concrete evidence links these individuals to Merkel in a way that proves coordinated misconduct. 4. City Resources for Personal Issues: If staff time and resources were used to strategize against a council member, this could constitute unethical behavior or misuse of public resources. Conclusion While the interviewee shared perceptions of disrespect and intimidation, the allegations lack direct evidence of bullying, harassment, or the creation of a hostile work environment. There is, however, substantial evidence suggesting a broader staff effort, potentially led by City Manager Hohman, to counter Merkel, which could raise ethical and legal concerns if confirmed. The absence of corroborating evidence for key allegations (e.g., video footage of the "blocking" incident) undermines the credibility of some claims. Further investigation into staff coordination and the use of city resources is warranted 4/1/2025 Law Enforcement Tax Statement for Spokane Valley City Council Meeting Ben Lund, 36 year resident of Spokane Valley. Good evening, Mayor, Councilmembers, City Staff, and fellow residents, Tonight, we are discussing the potential Phase II expansion of law enforcement staffing —a vital investment in public safety for Spokane Valley. While I support holding a public hearing to gather community input, I also want to highlight an unavoidable financial reality. The estimated cost of this expansion is $1,038,503— a significant figure that requires responsible financial planning. However, here's the concerning truth: Councilman Al Merkel's legal battles have already cost the City $295,000-28% of this amount. When factoring in expected lawsuit expenditures, that number climbs to 47%, an additional $200,000. Nearly half the cost of this much -needed law enforcement expansion is being diverted to cover legal expenses that should have never existed in the first place. Just think —if Councilman Merkel had simply followed the rules, Spokane Valley taxpayers wouldn't be shouldering this financial burden. If he were to step down today, the City would immediately save an estimated $200,000—funds that I:UUIII IIla1.CQU UC U,CU lUr jJUUllI; aitlCly. If new funding isn't identified, what services should the public be willing to cut? Should we reduce law enforcement coverage? Delay road maintenance? Eliminate other essential services? Spokane Valley residents deserve better than to see their hard-earned tax dollars wasted on unnecessary legal battles. We cannot afford you any more, Mr. Merkel This isn't just about numbers —it's about priorities. Thank you. Ben Lund