2025, 06-03 Formal B Meeting Packet
AGENDA
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
FORMAL B FORMAT
Tuesday, June 3, 2025 6:00 p.m.
Remotely via ZOOM Meeting and
In Person at Spokane Valley City Hall, Council Chambers
10210 E. Sprague Ave.
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting
NOTE: Members of the public may attend Spokane Valley Council meetings in-person at the address provided
above, or via Zoom at the link below. Members of the public will be allowed to comment in-person or via
Zoom as described below. Public comments will only be accepted for those items noted on the agenda as
Citizens must register by 4 p.m. the day of the meeting to provide comment
by Zoom. Please use the links below to register to provide verbal or written comment.
Sign up to Provide Verbal Public Comment at the Meeting via Calling-In
Submit Written Public Comment Prior to the Meeting
Join the Zoom WEB Meeting
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALL TO ORDER
INVOCATION: Pastor Steve Shoop, Spokane Valley Assembly of God Church
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
SPECIAL GUESTS/PRESENTATIONS:
PROCLAMATIONS:
GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any
subject except agenda action items, as public comments will be taken on those items where indicated. Please keep
comments to matters within the jurisdiction of the City Government. This is not an opportunity for questions or
discussion. Diverse points of view are welcome but please keep remarks civil. Remarks will be limited to three
minutes per person. If a person engages in disruptive behavior or makes individual personal attacks regarding
before the three-minute mark. To comment via zoom: use the link above for verbal or written comments as
per those directions. To comment at the meeting in person: speakers may sign in to speak but it is not
required. A sign-in sheet will be provided at the meeting.
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Public Hearing: Ordinance 25-009, Sign Code Kelly Konkright
\[public comment opportunity\]
2. Ordinance 25-009: Second Read: Sign Code Kelly Konkright
3. Ordinance 25-007: Second Read: CTA- 2024-002 Tony Beattie
Council Agenda June 3, 2025 Page 1 of 2
4. Ordinance 25-008: Second Read: Right of Way Permit update Tony Beattie
\[public comment opportunity\]
5. Ordinance 25-011: First Read: Reckless Endangerment with a Controlled Substance
Kelly Konkright, Tony Beattie
\[public comment opportunity\]
6. Motion Consideration: Councilmember Merkel Settlement Offer regarding Spokane County Superior
Court Case No. 25-2-00710-32 Kelly Konkright
\[public comment opportunity\]
NON-ACTION ITEMS:
7. Admin Report: Emergency Plans Update Virginia Clough
INFORMATION ONLY (will not be reported or discussed):
8. Info Only: Banking Authority Resolution
GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY: General public comment rules apply.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
EXECUTIVE SESSION Potential Acquisition or Sale \[RCW 42.30.110(1)(b)\].
(Proposed motion: I move Council adjourn into executive session for approximately 20 minutes to discuss
potential and pending litigation, and that no action will be taken upon return to open session.)
ADJOURNMENT
Council Agenda June 3, 2025 Page 2 of 2
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: June 3, 2025 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: consentold businesspublic hearing
information admin. report new business
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing regarding Ordinance No. 25-009 Amending SVMC 22.110.060
to Prohibit Signs on Traffic Devices.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 22.110
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
August 2013: The last amendment to SVMC 22.110.020, the specific sign code section that is the
subject of this administrative report (Ordinance No. 13-010).
January 21, 2025: Council received and administrative report to review draft amendments to SVMC
22.110.020. Council provided consensus to advance to a first reading.
February 10, 2025: City notifies Washington Department of Commerce of the proposed
development code amendment.
February 11, 2025: First Reading of Ordinance No. 25-001. Council moved and approved to assume
responsibility for holding, and directed City staff to schedule a public hearing.
February 24, 2025: Department of Commerce grants expedited review of proposed amendment and
confirms the City has satisfied the RCW 36.70A.106 notice requirement.
February 14, 2025: Notice of the public hearing on Ordinance No. 25-001 is published in the
Spokane Valley News Herald and The Exchange.
February 24, 2025: Department of Commerce grants expedited review of proposed amendment and
confirms the City has satisfied the RCW 36.70A.106 notice requirement.
March 11, 2025: Public hearing held regarding Ordinance No. 25-001. Council provided consensus
to advance to a second reading.
March 18, 2025: Second Reading of Ordinance No. 25-001. Council declined to adopt the
amendments after members of the public raised concerns that temporary “open house” and “garage
sale” signs would still be prohibited from the City rights-of-way. Staff agreed to propose an
alternative amendment that does not alter the current SVMC provisions relating to such signs.
May 13, 2025: Administrative Report – Amending SVMC 22.110.060 to Prohibit Signs on Traffic
Devices.
BACKGROUND:
The City’s sign code is SVMC 22.110 (hereinafter “Sign Code”). Over the last decade, the United States
Supreme Court has issued decisions that modify how the First Amendment of the United States Constitution
is interpreted and applied to the regulation of signs. The City Attorney’s Office has been reviewing all
aspects of the Sign Code to identify and recommend code text amendments consistent with current Supreme
Court precedent.
The first Sign Code regulation identified for revision was SVMC 22.110.020(E) pertaining to signs placed
within the City’s rights-of-way. City staff prepared code text amendments that would have expressly
allowed non-commercial signs within City rights-of-way but prohibited placement of commercial signs
within the rights-of-way. Staff presented these amendments to Council for consideration as Ordinance No.
25-001. At the first reading, Council elected to conduct the public hearing on the proposed amendments
rather than the Planning Commission because the amendment only impacted signage within City-owned
rights-of-way – not signs placed only on private property. Council completed the public hearing on March
thth
11, and the amendments were brought back for a second reading on March 18. During the public hearing
th
and at the March 18 second reading, members of the public expressed concern that the amendments did
not allow the placement of “open house” or “garage sale” signs within City rights-of-way. Council voted
against passing Ordinance No. 25-001 but indicated it would like to consider amendments that do not alter
the City’s current code relating to “open house” and “garage sale” type signage within rights-of-way.
The primary purpose of the Ordinance No. 25-001 amendments was to guard the safety and well-being of
pedestrians and drivers using City rights-of-way. One of the proposed amendments in Ordinance No. 25-
001 would have made it expressly clear that signs cannot be placed on traffic control devices, such as traffic
signs, traffic lights/poles, traffic medians, and round-a-bout structures. While the SVMC currently prohibits
signs from being placed on such devices, some members of the public do not realize this because the
restriction is identified in the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (“MUTCD”) which is
incorporated into the SVMC by reference. Amending the code to make it more readable and evident to the
public that signs are prohibited from being placed on or attached to such traffic control measures will
facilitate compliance and should result in less signs being placed on traffic control devices which can
distract or obstruct the sight of the travelling public.
th
At the May 13Council meeting, staff proposed the alternative sign code amendment identified in
Ordinance No. 25-009. This amendment would be to SVMC 22.110.060 titled “General provisions
applicable to all signs.” The amendment is limited to adding a new subsection J which would provide that:
Except for official government signs, signs are prohibited from being:
1. placed on or attached or otherwise affixed to (i) any part of a traffic control device, including
but not limited to traffic signs, (ii) any structure within or part of any right-of-way, (iii) any
traffic structure, facility, or device that channels traffic, including but not limited to traffic
islands and round-a-bout centers, or (iv) any portion of a bridge, including but not limited to
any structure attached to a bridge, when such bridge is within or part of a right-of-way; or
2. Placed either (i) in a location that partially or completely obstructs the view of any portion of
a device, structure, or facility described in paragraph 1(i) or (ii) of this subsection J, or (ii)
between the travelled portion of a right-of-way and a guardrail within or part of that right-of-
1
way.
If adopted, the amended code would not regulate signs within rights-of-way to the extent such signs are not
placed on or within traffic devices and structures or otherwise placed in a way that could impair the traveling
public’s view of such devices/structures. Whether signage could otherwise be placed within City rights-of-
way would still be governed by other currently existing provisions of the SVMC.
On May 13, 2025, Council scheduled a public hearing to be held at the June 3, 2025, Council meeting
regarding proposed Ordinance No. 25-009. After closing the public hearing, the ordinance will be brought
back for a second reading. For Council to proceed with adopting Ordinance No. 25-009, it must first
determine – based on the materials presented at the public hearing, including the public’s comments – that
(1) the proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, and
(2) bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. See
SVMC 17.80.150(F). For purposes of Council’s analysis of whether the proposed amendments are
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan contains the following provisions that
are consistent with the public safety policy interests furthered by the proposed amendments:
th
1
Staff added subsection 2 after the May 13administrative report in order to address instances where a
sign obstructs the visibility of a traffic control device or right-of-way structure even though it is not
attached to a device or structure.
Land Use Policy LU-PP8. Ensure that neighborhoods are served by safe and convenient motorized
and non-motorized transportation routes.
Transportation Goal T-G5. Maintain and enhance a comprehensive multimodal transportation
system that promotes, supports, and improves the safe, efficient, and reliable movement of people,
vehicles, and goods.
Transportation Policy T-P9. Provide and maintain quality street, sidewalk, and shared-use path
surfaces that provide a safe environment for all users.
OPTIONS: Conduct the public hearing.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Conduct the public hearing and advance Ordinance 25-009
to a second reading.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A
STAFF CONTACT: Kelly E. Konkright, City Attorney
___________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Ordinance 25-009: An Ordinance of the City of Spokane Valley Amending Title 22, Chapter 110,
Section 060 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code Prohibiting Signs on Traffic Devices
2. PowerPoint presentation
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 25 - 009
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY AMENDING TITLE 22, CHAPTER
110, SECTION 060 OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT SIGNS
ON TRAFFIC DEVICES
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Chapter 22.110 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code to
define and prohibit public nuisances within the City; and
WHEREAS, the City is in the process of reviewing and updating provisions of the Spokane Valley
Municipal Code relating to signage within the City’s territorial limits; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to revise the Spokane Valley Municipal Code to prohibit
placement of non-official government signs on traffic devices or in a manner that would otherwise obstruct
the travelling public’s view of such devices, the purpose of which is to protect the City’s interest in public
safety of the public using City rights-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on the
placement of signage on or otherwise obstructing traffic devices are necessary to protect public safety; and
WHEREAS, regulation of the City’s rights-of-way is a valid exercise of the authority granted to
the City by the Washington Constitution and Revised Code of Washington;
WHEREAS, on June 3, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing for which notice was duly
published in accordance with the Spokane Valley Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the amendment, as set forth below, is consistent with the goals and policies of the
City’s Comprehensive Plan and bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection
of the environment; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, does ordain as
follows:
Section1. Findings and Conclusions. The City Council acknowledges that it conducted
appropriate investigation and study and held a public hearing on the proposed development code
amendments. The City Council hereby makes the following findings and conclusions:
A. Growth Management Act Policies – The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA)
provides that each city shall adopt a comprehensive use plan and development regulations that
are consistent with and implement the Comprehensive Plan.
B. City of Spokane Valley Goals and Policies – The City of Spokane Valley has adopted goals
and policies consistent with the GMA and adopted goals and policies, set forth below.
a. Land Use Policy LU-PP8. Ensure that neighborhoods are served by safe and convenient
motorized and non-motorized transportation routes.
b. Transportation Goal T-G5. Maintain and enhance a comprehensive multimodal
transportation system that promotes, supports, and improves the safe, efficient, and reliable
movement of people, vehicles, and goods.
c. Transportation Policy T-P9. Provide and maintain quality street, sidewalk, and shared-use
path surfaces that provide a safe environment for all users.
C. Conclusions
a. The amendments to SVMC 22.110.060 are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
policies and goals to maintain and enhance a multimodal transportation system that
promotes, supports, and improves the safe movement of people and vehicles, ensure that
neighborhoods are served by safe motorized and non-motorized transportation routes, and
invest in infrastructure beautification.
b. The amendments to SVMC 22.110.060 bear a substantial relationship to public health,
safety and welfare, and protection of the environment.
c. The proposed City initiated code text amendment to SVMC 22.110.060 is consistent with
the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan and the approval criteria in SVMC 17.80.150(F).
c. The amendment to SVMC 22.110.060 is consistent with RCW 36.70A (GMA) which
stipulates that the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations be subject to
continuing evaluation by the City.
Section 2. Amending SVMC 22.110.060. SVMC 22.110.060, titled “General provisions
applicable to all signs” is hereby amended as follows:
SVMC 22.110.060 General provisions applicable to all signs.
A. All signs illuminated with exterior lighting shall have lighting confined to the sign, and positioned and
shielded to minimize impacts to the surrounding area(s). Gooseneck reflectors and lights are permitted on
permanent freestanding and wall signs; provided, that lighting or glare does not extend beyond the property
line.
B. Electronic signs shall be permitted on the same basis as other signs, subject to the requirements of Table
22.110-1. All electronic message centers (EMCs) are required to have automatic dimming capability that
adjusts the brightness to the ambient light at all times of the day and night. Written documentation that the
EMC is equipped with the automatic dimming device shall be submitted with the sign permit application.
C. A roof-mounted sign may be substituted for an allowed freestanding sign; provided, that the height of
the sign structure may not exceed the maximum height requirements of the zoning district in which the sign
is located.
D. Signs located within the airport hazard area shall conform to the location and height regulations set forth
in SVMC 19.110.030, Airport Hazard Overlay.
E. No sign shall be erected, relocated or maintained in a manner that prevents the free ingress or egress
from any door, window or fire escape.
F. No sign shall be attached to a standpipe or fire escape except official signs.
G. Any sign erected or maintained within five feet of public rights-of-way shall be smooth and free of nails,
tacks and wires.
H. All signs shall be maintained in good repair pursuant to SVMC 22.110.110.
I. No sign shall block the view of fire protection equipment from approach.
J. Except for official government signs, signs are prohibited from being:
1. Placed on or attached or otherwise affixed to (i) any part of a traffic control device, including but not
limited to traffic signs, (ii) any structure within or part of any right-of-way, (iii) any traffic structure,
facility, or device that channels traffic, including but not limited to traffic islands and round-a-bout centers,
or (iv) any portion of a bridge, including but not limited to any structure attached to a bridge, when such
bridge is within or part of a right-of-way; or
2. Placed either (i) in a location that partially or completely obstructs the view of any portion of a
device, structure, or facility described in paragraph 1(i) or (ii) of this subsection J, or (ii) between the
travelled portion of a right-of-way and a guardrail within or part of that right-of-way.
As used in this subsection J, “structure” does not include unimproved ground or landscape vegetation, and
“guardrail” includes any structure designed to prevent a vehicle from crossing over a right-of-way
boundary.
Section 3. Remainder of SVMC 22.110 Unchanged. The remaining provisions of SVMC
22.110 are unchanged by this amendment.
Section 4. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should
be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or
phrase of this Ordinance.
Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after
the date of publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City.
PASSED by the City Council this day of June 2025.
Mayor, Pam Haley
ATTEST:
Marci Patterson, City Clerk
Approved As To Form:
Kelly Konkright, City Attorney
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
Public hearing to consider amendments to the SVMC to prohibit signs on or interfering with traffic devicesOutline of hearing:
AGENDA
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: June 3, 2025 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: consentold businesspublic hearing
information admin. report new business
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second Reading Ordinance No. 25-009 Amending SVMC 22.110.060 to
Prohibit Signs on Traffic Devices
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 22.110
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
August 2013: The last amendment to SVMC 22.110.020, the specific sign code section that is the
subject of this administrative report (Ordinance No. 13-010).
January 21, 2025: Council received and administrative report to review draft amendments to SVMC
22.110.020. Council provided consensus to advance to a first reading.
February 10, 2025: City notifies Washington Department of Commerce of the proposed
development code amendment.
February 11, 2025: First Reading of Ordinance No. 25-001. Council moved and approved to assume
responsibility for holding, and directed City staff to schedule a public hearing.
February 14, 2025: Notice of the public hearing on Ordinance No. 25-001 is published in the
Spokane Valley News Herald and The Exchange.
February 24, 2025: Department of Commerce grants expedited review of proposed amendment and
confirms the City has satisfied the RCW 36.70A.106 notice requirement.
March 11, 2025: Public hearing held regarding Ordinance No. 25-001. Council provided consensus
to advance to a second reading.
March 18, 2025: Second Reading of Ordinance No. 25-001. Council declined to adopt the
amendments after members of the public raised concerns that temporary “open house” and “garage
sale” signs would still be prohibited from the City rights-of-way. Staff agreed to propose an
alternative amendment that does not alter the current SVMC provisions relating to such signs.
May 13, 2025: Administrative Report – Amending SVMC 22.110.060 to Prohibit Signs on Traffic
Devices.
June 3, 2025: Public hearing held regarding Ordinance No. 25-009 Amending SVMC 22.110.060
to Prohibit Signs on Traffic Devices.
BACKGROUND:
The City’s sign code is SVMC 22.110 (hereinafter “Sign Code”). Over the last decade, the United States
Supreme Court has issued decisions that modify how the First Amendment of the United States Constitution
is interpreted and applied to the regulation of signs. The City Attorney’s Office has been reviewing all
aspects of the Sign Code to identify and recommend code text amendments consistent with current Supreme
Court precedent.
The first Sign Code regulation identified for revision was SVMC 22.110.020(E) pertaining to signs placed
within the City’s rights-of-way. City staff prepared code text amendments that would have expressly
allowed non-commercial signs within City rights-of-way but prohibited placement of commercial signs
within the rights-of-way. Staff presented these amendments to Council for consideration as Ordinance No.
25-001. At the first reading, Council elected to conduct the public hearing on the proposed amendments
rather than the Planning Commission because the amendment only impacted signage within City-owned
rights-of-way – not signs placed only on private property. Council completed the public hearing on March
thth
11, and the amendments were brought back for a second reading on March 18. During the public hearing
th
and at the March 18 second reading, members of the public expressed concern that the amendments did
not allow the placement of “open house” or “garage sale” signs within City rights-of-way. Council voted
against passing Ordinance No. 25-001 but indicated it would like to consider amendments that do not alter
the City’s current code relating to “open house” and “garage sale” type signage within rights-of-way.
The primary purpose of the Ordinance No. 25-001 amendments was to guard the safety and well-being of
pedestrians and drivers using City rights-of-way. One of the proposed amendments in Ordinance No. 25-
001 would have made it expressly clear that signs cannot be placed on traffic control devices, such as traffic
signs, traffic lights/poles, traffic medians, and round-a-bout structures. While the SVMC currently prohibits
signs from being placed on such devices, some members of the public do not realize this because the
restriction is identified in the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (“MUTCD”) which is
incorporated into the SVMC by reference. Amending the code to make it more readable and evident to the
public that signs are prohibited from being placed on or attached to such traffic control measures will
facilitate compliance and should result in less signs being placed on traffic control devices which can
distract or obstruct the sight of the travelling public.
th
At the May 13Council meeting, staff proposed the alternative sign code amendment identified in
Ordinance No. 25-009. This amendment would be to SVMC 22.110.060 titled “General provisions
applicable to all signs.” The amendment is limited to adding a new subsection J which would provide that:
Except for official government signs, signs are prohibited from being:
1. placed on or attached or otherwise affixed to (i) any part of a traffic control device, including
but not limited to traffic signs, (ii) any structure within or part of any right-of-way, (iii) any
traffic structure, facility, or device that channels traffic, including but not limited to traffic
islands and round-a-bout centers, or (iv) any portion of a bridge, including but not limited to
any structure attached to a bridge, when such bridge is within or part of a right-of-way; or
2. Placed either (i) in a location that partially or completely obstructs the view of any portion of
a device, structure, or facility described in paragraph 1(i) or (ii) of this subsection J, or (ii)
between the travelled portion of a right-of-way and a guardrail within or part of that right-of-
1
way.
If adopted, the amended code will not regulate signs within rights-of-way to the extent such signs are not
placed on or within traffic devices and structures or otherwise placed in a way that could impair the traveling
public’s view of such devices/structures. Whether signage could otherwise be placed within City rights-of-
way would still be governed by other currently existing provisions of the SVMC.
A public hearing was held regarding proposed Ordinance No. 25-009 on June 3, 2025. For Council to adopt
Ordinance No. 25-009, it must first determine – based on the materials presented at the public hearing,
including the public’s comments – that (1) the proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable
provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, and (2) is substantially related to the public health, safety, welfare,
and protection of the environment. See SVMC 17.180.150(F). For purposes of Council’s analysis of
whether the proposed amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan
contains the following provisions that are consistent with the public safety policy interests furthered by the
proposed amendments:
th
1
Staff added subsection 2 after the May 13administrative report in order to address instances where a
sign obstructs the visibility of a traffic control device or right-of-way structure even though it is not
attached to a device or structure.
Land Use Policy LU-PP8. Ensure that neighborhoods are served by safe and convenient motorized
and non-motorized transportation routes.
Transportation Goal T-G5. Maintain and enhance a comprehensive multimodal transportation
system that promotes, supports, and improves the safe, efficient, and reliable movement of people,
vehicles, and goods.
Transportation Policy T-P9. Provide and maintain quality street, sidewalk, and shared-use path
surfaces that provide a safe environment for all users.
OPTIONS: Council may (1) adopt Ordinance No. 25-009, (2) reject Ordinance No. 25-009, or (3) take
other action as Council deems appropriate.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. 25-009 Amending SVMC
22.110.060 to Prohibit Signs on Traffic Devices.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A
STAFF CONTACT: Kelly E. Konkright, City Attorney
___________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance No. 25-009
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 25 - 009
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY AMENDING TITLE 22, CHAPTER
110, SECTION 060 OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT SIGNS
ON TRAFFIC DEVICES
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Chapter 22.110 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code to
define and prohibit public nuisances within the City; and
WHEREAS, the City is in the process of reviewing and updating provisions of the Spokane Valley
Municipal Code relating to signage within the City’s territorial limits; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to revise the Spokane Valley Municipal Code to prohibit
placement of non-official government signs on traffic devices or in a manner that would otherwise obstruct
the travelling public’s view of such devices, the purpose of which is to protect the City’s interest in public
safety of the public using City rights-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on the
placement of signage on or otherwise obstructing traffic devices are necessary to protect public safety; and
WHEREAS, regulation of the City’s rights-of-way is a valid exercise of the authority granted to
the City by the Washington Constitution and Revised Code of Washington;
WHEREAS, on June 3, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing for which notice was duly
published in accordance with the Spokane Valley Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the amendment, as set forth below, is consistent with the goals and policies of the
City’s Comprehensive Plan and bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection
of the environment; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, does ordain as
follows:
Section1. Findings and Conclusions. The City Council acknowledges that it conducted
appropriate investigation and study and held a public hearing on the proposed development code
amendments. The City Council hereby makes the following findings and conclusions:
A. Growth Management Act Policies – The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA)
provides that each city shall adopt a comprehensive use plan and development regulations that
are consistent with and implement the Comprehensive Plan.
B. City of Spokane Valley Goals and Policies – The City of Spokane Valley has adopted goals
and policies consistent with the GMA and adopted goals and policies, set forth below.
a. Land Use Policy LU-PP8. Ensure that neighborhoods are served by safe and convenient
motorized and non-motorized transportation routes.
b. Transportation Goal T-G5. Maintain and enhance a comprehensive multimodal
transportation system that promotes, supports, and improves the safe, efficient, and reliable
movement of people, vehicles, and goods.
c. Transportation Policy T-P9. Provide and maintain quality street, sidewalk, and shared-use
path surfaces that provide a safe environment for all users.
C. Conclusions
a. The amendments to SVMC 22.110.060 are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
policies and goals to maintain and enhance a multimodal transportation system that
promotes, supports, and improves the safe movement of people and vehicles, ensure that
neighborhoods are served by safe motorized and non-motorized transportation routes, and
invest in infrastructure beautification.
b. The amendments to SVMC 22.110.060 bear a substantial relationship to public health,
safety and welfare, and protection of the environment.
c. The proposed City initiated code text amendment to SVMC 22.110.060 is consistent with
the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan and the approval criteria in SVMC 17.80.150(F).
c. The amendment to SVMC 22.110.060 is consistent with RCW 36.70A (GMA) which
stipulates that the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations be subject to
continuing evaluation by the City.
Section 2. Amending SVMC 22.110.060. SVMC 22.110.060, titled “General provisions
applicable to all signs” is hereby amended as follows:
SVMC 22.110.060 General provisions applicable to all signs.
A. All signs illuminated with exterior lighting shall have lighting confined to the sign, and positioned and
shielded to minimize impacts to the surrounding area(s). Gooseneck reflectors and lights are permitted on
permanent freestanding and wall signs; provided, that lighting or glare does not extend beyond the property
line.
B. Electronic signs shall be permitted on the same basis as other signs, subject to the requirements of Table
22.110-1. All electronic message centers (EMCs) are required to have automatic dimming capability that
adjusts the brightness to the ambient light at all times of the day and night. Written documentation that the
EMC is equipped with the automatic dimming device shall be submitted with the sign permit application.
C. A roof-mounted sign may be substituted for an allowed freestanding sign; provided, that the height of
the sign structure may not exceed the maximum height requirements of the zoning district in which the sign
is located.
D. Signs located within the airport hazard area shall conform to the location and height regulations set forth
in SVMC 19.110.030, Airport Hazard Overlay.
E. No sign shall be erected, relocated or maintained in a manner that prevents the free ingress or egress
from any door, window or fire escape.
F. No sign shall be attached to a standpipe or fire escape except official signs.
G. Any sign erected or maintained within five feet of public rights-of-way shall be smooth and free of nails,
tacks and wires.
H. All signs shall be maintained in good repair pursuant to SVMC 22.110.110.
I. No sign shall block the view of fire protection equipment from approach.
J. Except for official government signs, signs are prohibited from being:
1. Placed on or attached or otherwise affixed to (i) any part of a traffic control device, including but not
limited to traffic signs, (ii) any structure within or part of any right-of-way, (iii) any traffic structure,
facility, or device that channels traffic, including but not limited to traffic islands and round-a-bout centers,
or (iv) any portion of a bridge, including but not limited to any structure attached to a bridge, when such
bridge is within or part of a right-of-way; or
2. Placed either (i) in a location that partially or completely obstructs the view of any portion of a
device, structure, or facility described in paragraph 1(i) or (ii) of this subsection J, or (ii) between the
travelled portion of a right-of-way and a guardrail within or part of that right-of-way.
As used in this subsection J, “structure” does not include unimproved ground or landscape vegetation, and
“guardrail” includes any structure designed to prevent a vehicle from crossing over a right-of-way
boundary.
Section 3. Remainder of SVMC 22.110 Unchanged. The remaining provisions of SVMC
22.110 are unchanged by this amendment.
Section 4. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should
be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or
phrase of this Ordinance.
Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after
the date of publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City.
PASSED by the City Council this day of June 2025.
Mayor, Pam Haley
ATTEST:
Marci Patterson, City Clerk
Approved As To Form:
Kelly Konkright, City Attorney
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: June 3, 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: Second Reading Ordinance 25-007 - CTA 2024-0002 Right-of-Way
Permit Update
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Chapters 7.05, 17.80 and 22.130 SVMC
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
April 22, 2025, Administrative Report for the right-of-way permit updates.
May 20, 2025, First Reading
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance 25-007
The purpose of right-of-way permits is to prevent unlicensed obstruction and use of the right-of-
way that impedes the traveling public, and to ensure applicants bear the responsibility for damage
caused by their activity. Pursuant to chapters 17.80 and 22.130 SVMC, the City has classified
right-of-way permits as Type I land use permits. In reality, right-of-way permits are distinct from
other permits listed in table 17.80-1 as they are for management of the City’s rights-of-way,
easements, and other public properties held in trust by the City for the public. Thus, the City staff
are recommending removing right-of-way permitting procedures from the development
regulations.
Relatedly, SVMC 17.80.040(A)(1) contains ambiguous language seemingly exempting “normal”
repair and maintenance which has led to past challenges when processing right-of-way permits.
While conducting work that clearly impedes the traveling public, and requires a permit, some
entities have argued they are exempt from permit requirements because they are conducting
“normal” maintenance or repair. Because of this, and other potential confusion with this
subsection, the City is recommending removing the exemption for normal repair and
maintenance.
In total, CTA 2024-0002 would repeal SVMC 22.130.100 in its entirety, and update references in
chapter 22.130, as well as remove the potential ambiguity within chapter 17.80 SVMC.
CTA-2024-0002 was presented to the Planning Commission on December 12, 2024 and a public
hearing was conducted on February 13, 2025. The Findings of Fact were approved on February
27, 2025 without opposition. The City Council voted to advance Ordinance 25-007 to a second
reading on May 20, 2025.
Ordinance 25-008
Codifying right-of-way permit procedures in Title 9 related to Vehicles and Traffic provides clarity
to the public that these types of permits are not land use or development regulations. Therefore,
in conjunction with CTA-2024-0002, staff are recommending City Council adopt a new chapter
9.50 SVMC, updating and codifying the City’s right-of-way permit procedures. The new chapter
9.50 SVMC would replace SVMC 22.130.100. The repeal and relocation of the right-of-way
permit procedure necessitates a specific addition to the nuisance provisions of SVMC 7.05.040
related to prohibiting objects in the right-of-way. These changes provide a clearer path for
enforcement of unpermitted right-of-way activity.
Minor adjustments to the draft language since the administrative report include ensuring certain
activity within City stormwater facilities and swales are not exempted from permitting
requirements, further clarifying that working without a permit is a nuisance, and clarifying that
parties conducting unpermitted work are still required to obtain a permit – the cost of which is
double the cost of the required permit.
The City Council voted to advance Ordinance 25-008 to a second reading on May 20, 2025.
OPTIONS: Move to approve Ordinance Number 25-007 or take other action as deemed
appropriate.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move to approve Ordinance Number 25-007, CTA
2024-0002, amending Chapters 17.80 and 22.130 SVMC related to removing right-of-way permit
procedures from the development code and other matters related thereto.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
There is no anticipated financial impact.
STAFF CONTACT: Tony Beattie, Senior Deputy City Attorney
Jerremy Clark, Traffic Engineering Manager
Jenny Nickerson, Building Official
ATTACHMENTS:
Proposed Ordinance 25-007(CTA 2024-002)
Findings of Fact for CTA 2024-0002
DRAFT
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 25 – 007
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY AMENDING CHAPTERS 17.80 AND
22.130 OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PERMIT
REQUIREMENTS FOR USE OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED
THERETO
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XI, section 11 of the Washington State Constitution, and RCW
35A.11.020, the City has authority to manage and regulate the rights-of-way so as to preserve the traveled
way for the traveling public; and
WHEREAS, the City currently issues right-of-way permits pursuant to chapter 22.130 SVMC
“Development Transportation Improvements”; and
WHEREAS, regulating right-of-way permits via the development regulations has resulted in
challenges for applicants, permittees, and staff; and
WHEREAS, right-of-way permits, as licenses to conduct activity or work within the right-of-way
are not development regulations related to the use of private property; and
WHEREAS, removing the right-of-way permitting procedure from chapter 22.130 SVMC, and
amending chapter 17.80 SVMC to remove exemption language that has caused confusion among right-of-
way permit applicants in particular will result in clarification of the City’s process and permitting
requirements; and
WHEREAS, in conjunction with this Ordinance 25-007, the City Council will consider adopting
updated permitting and enforcement procedures for use of the right-of-way pursuant to Ordinance 25-008;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission held a study session to consider
CTA-2024-0002 related to the amendments to chapter 22.130 and 17.80 SVMC on December 12, 2024;
and
WHEREAS, on January 24, 2025 the City published in the Valley News Herald notice of a public
hearing to occur on February 13, 2025 to consider CTA-2024-0002; and
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2025, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received
evidence, information, and a staff report, and conducted deliberations; and
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2025, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend that the
City Council approve CTA-2024-0002; and
WHEREAS, on February 27, 2025, the Planning Commission voted to approve the findings and
recommendations for CTA-2024-0002; and
WHEREAS, on April 22, 2025, City Council reviewed the proposed amendments and Commission
Findings and Recommendations; and
WHEREAS, on May 20, 2025, City Council considered a first ordinance reading and voted to
advance the ordinance to a second reading; and
WHEREAS, the amendments set forth herein are consistent with the goals and policies of the City’s
Ordinance 25-007 CTA-2024-0002 Right-of-Way Permits Page 1 of 9
DRAFT
Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the amendments to chapters 17.80 and 22.130 SVMC bear a substantial relation to the
public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, do ordain as
follows:
Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance 25-007 is to remove the right-of-way
permitting process from the City’s development regulations, and remove permit exemption language that
has cause confusion particularly for right-of-way permit applicants. By separate ordinance, the City
Council will consider adopting new right-of-way permit procedures and enforcement mechanisms.
Section 2. Findings and Conclusions. The City Council acknowledges that the Planning
Commission conducted appropriate investigation and study, held a public hearing on the proposed
amendments and recommends approval of the amendments. The City Council has read and considered
the Planning Commission’s findings. The City Council hereby makes the following findings and
conclusions:
A. Growth Management Act Policies – Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA)
provides that each city shall adopt a comprehensive land use plan and development
regulations that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan.
B. The proposed text amendments are consistent with the following goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan:
ED-G6 Maintain a positive business climate that strives for flexibility, predictability, and
stability.
U-G1 Coordinate with utility providers to balance cost-effectiveness with
environmental protection, aesthetic impact, public safety, and public health.
T-G3 Strive to reduce the number of serious injury/fatality collisions to zero.
T-P2 Consider neighborhood traffic and livability conditions and address potential
adverse impacts of public and private projects during the planning, designing, permitting, and
construction phases.
T-P4 Support voluntary efforts to beautify local and regional transportation corridors.
C. The proposed amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and
protection of the environment. Unless exempt, right-of-way permits are required for any
person or company performing work or engaging in activity within City rights-of-way. These
permits require certain conditions to ensure public safety and welfare including traffic control
plans, insurance, and adherence to pavement cut policies. Relocating right-of-way permit
procedures to Title 9 ultimately ensures these regulations are catalogued appropriately, and
that right-of-way permit procedures and requirements are not confused with the procedures
and requirements of Type I land use and development permits. The City will continue to
provide superior and efficient service to the public by processing these permits within days of
receipt.
Ordinance 25-007 CTA-2024-0002 Right-of-Way Permits Page 2 of 9
DRAFT
D. Conclusions.
1. The proposed text amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety,
welfare, and protection of the environment. The proposed code text amendment to
chapters 17.80 and 22.130 SVMC, clarifying that right-of-way permits are not subject to
the procedures and requirements of Type I land use and development permits, clarifying
when permits are required, and other matters related thereto is consistent with the
requirements of SVMC 17.80.150(F) and the Comprehensive Plan.
Section 3. Amending chapter 17.80 SVMC. Chapter 17.80 SVMC is hereby amended to
read as follows:
…
17.80.030Assignment of development application classification.
A. Assignment by Table. Land use and development applications shall be classified pursuant to Table 17.80-1
below:
Table 17.80-1 – Permit Type and Land Use Application
Type Land Use and Development Application SVMC Cross-Reference
Accessory dwelling units 19.40
Administrative determinations by city manager or designee Multiple
or building official
Administrative exception19.140
Administrative interpretation 17.50.010
Boundary line adjustments and eliminations20.80
Building permits not subject to SEPA 21.20.040
Floodplain development 21.30
Grading permits 24.50
Type I
Home business permit19.65.180
Shoreline letter of exemption 21.50
Record of survey to establish lots within a binding site plan20.60.030
Right-of-way permits22.130.100
Site plan review 19.130
Small cell permit 22.121; 22.122
Temporary use permit 19.160
Time extensions for preliminary subdivision, short 20.30.060
subdivision, or binding site plan
Alterations – preliminary and final short subdivisions and 20.60
preliminary and final binding site plans (where there is no
alteration of a public dedication)
Type II
Binding site plan – preliminary and final 20.50
Emergency shelter and emergency housing 19.45
Ordinance 25-007 CTA-2024-0002 Right-of-Way Permits Page 3 of 9
DRAFT
Type Land Use and Development Application SVMC Cross-Reference
Minor alterations –preliminary subdivisions20.50
Permanent supportive housing 19.45
SEPA threshold determination21.20.060
Shoreline conditional use permit21.50
Shoreline nonconforming use or structure review 21.50
Shoreline substantial development permit 21.50
Shoreline variance21.50
Short subdivision – preliminary and final20.30, 20.40
Transitional housing19.45
Transitional parking programs 19.45
Vacation – short subdivisions and binding site plans where 20.70
there is no vacation of an area designated or dedicated for
public use
Wireless communication facilities 22.120
Alterations – final subdivisions (where a public hearing is 20.50
requested)
Alterations – preliminary and final short subdivisions and 20.60
preliminary and final binding site plans (where there is
alteration of a public dedication)
Conditional use permits 19.150
Subdivisions – preliminary20.30
Type III
Substantial alterations – preliminary subdivisions 20.50
Vacation – subdivision; short subdivisions and binding site 20.70
plans where there is vacation of an area designated or
dedicated for public use
Variance 19.170
Zoning map amendments (site-specific rezones) 19.30.030
Annual Comprehensive Plan amendments (text and/or map) 17.80.140
Area-wide zoning map amendments 17.80.140
Type IV
Development Code text amendments 17.80.150
B. Assignment by City Manager or Designee. Land use and development applications not defined in Table 17.80-1
shall be assigned a type based on the most closely related application type by the city manager or designee, unless
exempt under SVMC 17.80.040. When more than one procedure may be appropriate, the process providing the
greatest opportunity for public notice shall be followed.
C. Shoreline letters of exemption, shoreline substantial development permits, shoreline conditional use permits,
shoreline variances, and shoreline nonconforming use or structure review shall be processed pursuant to the
procedures set forth in Chapter 17.80 SVMC, subject to any additional or modified procedures provided in Chapter
21.50 SVMC, Shoreline Regulations, including submittals, completeness review, notices, hearings, and decisions.
Ordinance 25-007 CTA-2024-0002 Right-of-Way Permits Page 4 of 9
DRAFT
D. Small cell permits and wireless communication facilities shall be processed pursuant to the procedures set forth
in Chapter 17.80 SVMC, except as may otherwise be required pursuant to federal and state law, including but not
limited to 47 USC 1455(a) (Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012) and
Chapter 35.99 RCW. Chapter 22.122 SVMC specifies applicable time periods for review and processing of eligible
facilities requests, collocations, small cell permits, and new wireless communication facilities.
E. Except as provided in Table 17.80-1, change of conditions for permits shall be processed the same as the original
permit type.
17.80.040 Exempt activities.
A. Exemptions. Unless specified elsewhere in SVMC Title 17, the following development activities are exempt
from the procedural requirements of Chapter 17.80 SVMC:
1. Normal or eEmergency repair or maintenance of public or private buildings, structures, landscaping, or
utilities.
2. A change of any legally established use is exempt, unless the change of use requires:
a. An increase in the number of parking spaces provided;
b. A conditional use permit under Chapter 19.150 SVMC, Conditional Use Permits;
c. A site plan approval under Chapter 19.130 SVMC, Site Plan Review; or
d. Review by SEPA.
3. Final subdivisions, short subdivisions, and binding site plans.
4. Building permits that are not subject to SEPA.
5. On-site utility permits not obtained in conjunction with a specific development application including, but not
limited to, sewer hook-ups, water hook-ups, right-of-way permits, and fire department permits.
6. Sign permits.
7. Interior remodeling and tenant improvements unless site plan review is required under Chapter 19.130
SVMC, Site Plan Review provided that the interior alterations do not result in the following:
(a) Additional sleeping quarters or bedrooms;
(b) Nonconformity with federal emergency management agency substantial improvement thresholds; or
(c) Increase the total square footage or valuation of the structure thereby requiring upgraded fire access or
fire suppression systems.
B. Other Regulations. Applications exempt pursuant to SVMC 17.80.040 remain subject to all other applicable
standards and requirements of the SVMC.
…
Section 3. Amending chapter 22.130 SVMC. Chapter 22.130 SVMC is hereby amended as
follows:
…
Ordinance 25-007 CTA-2024-0002 Right-of-Way Permits Page 5 of 9
DRAFT
22.130.070 Required improvements.
A. Prior to the issuance of any approvals for development projects or permits subject to the provisions of Chapter
22.130 SVMC, the city manager or designee shall determine the extent and type of street improvements and right-
of-way/border easement dedications to the extent allowed by the law, and pursuant to the following:
1. The Comprehensive Plan;
2. The arterial street map;
3. The street standards (SVMC 22.130.040);
4. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices identified in SVMC 22.130.050;
5. The local street planThe City of Spokane Valley Transportation Improvement Plan;
6. Information submitted by the applicant including any preliminary site plans, engineering reports, or other
relevant data;
7. A determination of the function, safety, efficiency and coordinated future expansion needs of the roadway
system to serve the traveling public and emergency vehicles; and
8. Portions of the uniform development code, SVMC Titles 17 through 25, that specifically identify required
future roadways, streets, or other rights-of-way.
B. Requirements may include but are not limited to:
1. The extent and type of required street improvements pursuant to SVMC 22.130.040;
2. The extent of additional and/or new right-of-way and/or border easement needed to support the required
improvements pursuant to SVMC 22.130.040;
3. Participation in capital improvement projects as included on the adopted six-year street improvement
planTransportation Improvement Plan.
4. Participation in transportation impact fee areas pursuant to chapter 22.100 SVMC,
22.130.080 Future acquisition areas.
Repealed by Ord. 18-003.
22.130.090 Conditional use permit.
Repealed by Ord. 25-007____________. A. Permit Required. Conditional use permits shall be issued
administratively at or before the time development approvals and permits are granted. Conditional use permits shall,
at a minimum, specify the temporary or interim use allowed, the conditions of the permit, the provisions for and
timing of removal, relocation or installation and the responsibility for the cost of relocation, removal or installation.
B. Appeals. Any appeal of the administrative decision shall be heard pursuant to Chapter 17.90 SVMC, Appeals. All
conditional use permits shall be referenced by a title notice.
22.130.100 Right-of-way permit and use requirements.
Repealed by Ord. 25-007____________. A. Right-of-Way Permit Applicability. Unless exempt from permit
requirements, a right-of-way permit is required of any person or company who performs construction work or
otherwise engages in activity within existing City rights-of-way, or on City-owned infrastructure. A right-of-way
permit authorizes a permittee to perform work or conduct activity in a right-of-way or easement.
Permits shall not be required for the following:
1. Work done by or for the City within its rights-of-way.
Ordinance 25-007 CTA-2024-0002 Right-of-Way Permits Page 6 of 9
DRAFT
2. Work that is two hours or less in duration, as long as that work does not require the closure of more than 50
percent of a nonarterial street, does not close any lanes on an arterial street, does not involve excavation within
the rights-of-way, or does not involve cutting or placement of pavement, sidewalks, curbs or gutters.
Exemption from the permit requirements of the SVMC shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be
done in any manner in violation of the provisions of the SVMC or any other laws, ordinances or standards of this
jurisdiction.
B. Expiration. Right-of-way permits issued between April 1st and September 30th are valid for 30 days after the
date of issuance, with a one-time 30-day extension available. Right-of-way permits issued between October 1st and
March 31st shall be valid until the following April 30th.
C. Emergency Repairs. In the case of an emergency repair, a private or public utility may commence work prior to
obtaining a permit, provided the person responsible for the work obtains a construction permit within 48 hours after
work is commenced or on the first City business day following said elapsed 48-hour period.
D. Right-of-Way Permit – Application. No right-of-way permit shall be issued unless a written application is
submitted and approved by the City. The application shall, at a minimum, contain the following:
1. Construction plans or drawings approved by the City, if required;
2. A traffic control plan, if the work closes more than 50 percent of the nonarterial street, or closes any lanes on
an arterial street;
3. The period of time during which the right-of-way will be obstructed; and
4. Proof of the contractor’s and all subcontractors’ state licensing, insurance and requirements.
Depending upon the nature and extent of the construction activity or work, the City may require engineering,
restoration and drainage plans prepared by a Washington-licensed engineer at the applicant’s sole cost and expense.
At the discretion of the City, a multiple-use permit may be available for licensed and bonded businesses and public
utilities. The multiple-use permit fee will be established by resolution in the master fee schedule. The multiple-use
permit shall expire at the end of the City fiscal year. The administrative regulations governing the multiple-use
permit shall be written and approved by the City. Failure to comply with the administrative regulations shall be a
violation of this code.
E. Right-of-Way Permit Fees. Permit fees shall be assessed in accordance with the currently adopted Spokane
Valley master fee schedule.
F. Notice Required. The applicant shall give the City notice not less than 48 hours before any work or activity is
commenced and shall notify the City upon completion of the same. If a traffic control plan is required to be
submitted with the application, the applicant shall give the City not less than 72 hours’ notice. In the event of an
unexpected repair or emergency, work may be commenced as required under the circumstances. Unexpected repairs
and emergency work shall comply with all other requirements of SVMC 22.130.100.
G. Construction Standards. All work within the City rights-of-way shall be in accordance with adopted City
standards in effect at the time of the application for the permit. These include but are not limited to current versions
of the Spokane Valley street standards; the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual; the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD); Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard Specifications for
Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction; and applicable standards of the American Public Works Association
(APWA).
H. Maintaining Access. In the event it is necessary for the permittee to excavate the entire width of the street, no
more than half of the street shall be opened for construction and closed to traffic at one time. Such portion of the
work shall be backfilled and completed before the remaining portion of the street may be excavated. If it is
impossible, infeasible or unsafe to permit the work while maintaining an open lane for traffic, the City may, with the
concurrence of the chief of police and fire chief, permit the street to be blocked for a short period of time where
Ordinance 25-007 CTA-2024-0002 Right-of-Way Permits Page 7 of 9
DRAFT
suitable detours can be provided and the public will not be unnecessarily inconvenienced. The permittee shall
furnish facilities, such as bridges or other suitable means, or clearly identify appropriate detours, to allow the flow of
traffic without unnecessary congestion.
I. Traffic Control. Any person or company that performs construction work or otherwise engages in activity within
the existing City rights-of-way, or on City-owned infrastructure, is responsible for all traffic control and assumes the
responsibility to maintain appropriate signage, signals and barricades that protect the public safety, in accordance
with the MUTCD. The person or company shall provide for the safe operation of all equipment, vehicles and
persons within the right-of-way.
J. Damage to Existing Infrastructure. All damage to existing public or private infrastructure and/or property during
the progress of the construction work or activity shall be repaired by the permittee. Methods and materials for such
repair shall conform to adopted City standards. If the permittee fails to furnish the necessary labor and materials for
such repairs, the City shall have the authority to cause said necessary labor and materials to be furnished by the City
and the cost shall be charged against the permittee. Such charge shall be immediately paid by the permittee and
shall, if not paid on demand, be deemed a valid claim on the bond filed with the City.
K. City’s Right to Restore Right-of-Way and Easements. If the permittee fails to restore any City right-of-way or
easement to its original and proper condition upon the expiration of the time fixed by such permit or shall otherwise
fail to complete the right-of-way construction work covered by such permit or if the work of the permittee is
defective and the defect is discovered within one year from the completion of the right-of-way construction work,
the City or designee shall have the right to do all work and things necessary to restore the right-of-way and/or
easement and to complete the right-of-way construction work.
The permittee shall be liable for all costs and expenses of restoration or completion. The City shall have a cause of
action for all fees, expenses and amounts paid for such work. Following demand, the City may enforce its rights
pursuant to SVMC 22.130.100. No additional permits shall be granted until the invoice for City-performed work has
been paid.
L. Insurance – Evidence. The permittee, prior to the commencement of construction hereunder, shall furnish the City
satisfactory evidence in writing that the permittee has in force, during the performance of the construction work or
activity, commercial general liability insurance of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 general
aggregate duly issued by an insurance company authorized to do business in this state. In addition, the policy shall
name the City as an additional named insured. The City may reduce the insurance limits if good cause exists.
M. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. The permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its
officers, officials, employees and volunteers from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits, including
attorney fees, arising out of the permit issued under SVMC 22.130.100 except as may be caused by the negligence
or willful conduct on the part of the City.
N. Rules and Policy. To implement the right-of-way permit and provide for the public health and safety, the City,
under the supervision of the city manager, may develop and adopt rules, policies and forms consistent with SVMC
22.130.100. All adopted rules, policies and forms shall be filed with the city clerk.
O. Violations – Penalties. Any person violating the provisions of SVMC 22.130.100 shall be subject to all
enforcement actions and penalties pursuant to Chapter 17.100 SVMC.
…
Section 4. Other sections unchanged. All other provisions of chapters 17.80 and 22.130
SVMC not specifically referenced herein shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 5. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should
be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or
phrase of this Ordinance.
Ordinance 25-007 CTA-2024-0002 Right-of-Way Permits Page 8 of 9
DRAFT
Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after
the date of publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City.
PASSED by the City Council this day of , 2025.
Mayor, Pam Haley
ATTEST:
Marci Patterson, City Clerk
Approved As To Form:
Kelly Konkright, City Attorney
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
Ordinance 25-007 CTA-2024-0002 Right-of-Way Permits Page 9 of 9
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: June 3, 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: Second Reading Ordinance 25-008 Right-of-Way Permit Update
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Chapters 7.05, 17.80 and 22.130 SVMC
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
April 22, 2025, Administrative report for the right-of-way permit updates.
May 20, 2025, First Reading
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance 25-007
The purpose of right-of-way permits is to prevent unlicensed obstruction and use of the right-of-
way that impedes the traveling public, and to ensure applicants bear the responsibility for damage
caused by their activity. Pursuant to chapters 17.80 and 22.130 SVMC, the City has classified
right-of-way permits as Type I land use permits. In reality, right-of-way permits are distinct from
other permits listed in table 17.80-1 as they are for management of the City’s rights-of-way,
easements, and other public properties held in trust by the City for the public. Thus, the City staff
are recommending removing right-of-way permitting procedures from the development
regulations.
Relatedly, SVMC 17.80.040(A)(1) contains ambiguous language seemingly exempting “normal”
repair and maintenance which has led to past challenges when processing right-of-way permits.
While conducting work that clearly impedes the traveling public, and requires a permit, some
entities have argued they are exempt from permit requirements because they are conducting
“normal” maintenance or repair. Because of this, and other potential confusion with this
subsection, the City is recommending removing the exemption for normal repair and
maintenance.
In total, CTA 2024-0002 would repeal SVMC 22.130.100 in its entirety, and update references in
chapter 22.130, as well as remove the potential ambiguity within chapter 17.80 SVMC.
CTA-2024-0002 was presented to the Planning Commission on December 12, 2024 and a public
hearing was conducted on February 13, 2025. The Findings of Fact were approved on February
27, 2025 without opposition. The City Council voted to advance Ordinance 25-007 to a second
reading on May 20, 2025.
Ordinance 25-008
Codifying right-of-way permit procedures in Title 9 related to Vehicles and Traffic provides clarity
to the public that these types of permits are not land use or development regulations. Therefore,
in conjunction with CTA-2024-0002, staff are recommending City Council adopt a new chapter
9.50 SVMC, updating and codifying the City’s right-of-way permit procedures. The new chapter
9.50 SVMC would replace SVMC 22.130.100. The repeal and relocation of the right-of-way
permit procedure necessitates a specific addition to the nuisance provisions of SVMC 7.05.040
related to prohibiting objects in the right-of-way. These changes provide a clearer path for
enforcement of unpermitted right-of-way activity.
Minor adjustments to the draft language since the administrative report include ensuring certain
activity within City stormwater facilities and swales are not exempted from permitting
requirements, further clarifying that working without a permit is a nuisance, and clarifying that
parties conducting unpermitted work are still required to obtain a permit – the cost of which is
double the cost of the required permit.
The City Council voted to advance Ordinance 25-008 to a second reading on May 20, 2025.
OPTIONS: Move to approve Ordinance Number 25-008; or take other action as deemed
appropriate.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move to approve Ordinance Number 25-008 adopting
new chapter 9.50 SVMC and amending chapter 7.05 SVMC related to updating right-of-way
permit procedures and enforcement, and other matters related thereto..
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
There is no anticipated financial impact.
STAFF CONTACT: Tony Beattie, Senior Deputy City Attorney
Jerremy Clark, Traffic Engineering Manager
Jenny Nickerson, Building Official
ATTACHMENTS:
Proposed Ordinance 25-008
DRAFT
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 25 – 008
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY AMENDING SECTION 7.05.040
AND ADOPTING CHAPTER 9.50 OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO REGULATING RIGHTS-OF-WAY THROUGH PERMITTING AND
ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XI, section 11 of the Washington State Constitution, and RCW
35A.11.020, the City has authority to manage and regulate the rights-of-way so as to preserve the traveled
way for the traveling public; and
WHEREAS, the City currently issues right-of-way permits pursuant to chapter 22.130 SVMC
“Development Transportation Improvements”; and
WHEREAS, regulating right-of-way permits via the development regulations has resulted in
challenges for applicants, permittees, and staff; and
WHEREAS, right-of-way permits, as licenses to conduct activity or work within the rights-of-way
are not development regulations related to the use of private property; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance 25-008, updates permitting and enforcement procedures for use of the
rights-of-way; and
WHEREAS, in conjunction with this Ordinance 25-008, the City Council is considering Ordinance
25-007 related to CTA 2024-0002, which proposes removing the right-of-way permitting procedure from
chapter 22.130 SVMC to Title 9 SVMC; and
WHEREAS, on April 22, 2025, the City Council held an administrative report to consider the
adoption of new chapter 9.50 SVMC and amendments to SVMC 7.07.040; and
WHEREAS, on May 20, 2025, the City Council considered a first ordinance reading and voted to
advance the ordinance to a second reading.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, do ordain as
follows:
Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance 25-008 is to adopt chapter 9.50 of the
Spokane Valley Municipal Code (“SVMC”) and amend SVMC 7.05.040 both relating to the regulation of
rights-of-way through permitting and enforcement procedures.
Section 2. Amending SVMC 7.05.040. SVMC 7.05.040 is hereby amended to read as
follows:
7.05.040 Nuisances prohibited.
No person, firm, or entity shall erect, contrive, cause, continue, maintain, or permit to exist any public nuisance
within the City including on the property of any person, firm, or entity or upon any public rights-of-way abutting a
person’s, firm’s, or entity’s property. Prohibited public nuisances include, but are not limited to:
A. Vegetation.
1. Any vegetation, or parts thereof, which hang lower than eight feet above any public walkway or sidewalk; or
hang lower than 14 feet above any public street; or which are growing in such a manner as to obstruct or impair
Ordinance 25-008 Right-of-Way Permit Procedures and Enforcement Page 1 of 10
DRAFT
the free and full use of any public walkway, sidewalk, or street; or violate City clear view triangle regulations.
The City shall be responsible for maintaining all vegetation placed by the City adjacent to a public walkway,
sidewalk, or street.
2. Any growth of noxious weeds or toxic vegetation shall be subject to Chapter 16-750 WAC as currently
adopted and hereafter amended.
B. Buildings, Structures, Fences. Buildings or portions thereof which are deemed dangerous or unfit pursuant to the
SVMC (including all building and property maintenance codes and regulations as currently adopted and hereafter
amended).
C. Sidewalks.
1. Any protrusion, awning, or overhang that inhibits or obstructs use of a public walkway or sidewalk.
2. Any object, construction, or damage that inhibits or obstructs the surface use of a public walkway or
sidewalk.
3. Accumulations of dirt or debris not removed from a public sidewalk.
D. Accumulations of Materials, Garbage, Recyclables, Furniture, Machinery.
1. Building and Construction Materials. Any accumulation, stack, or pile of building or construction materials,
including but not limited to metal, wood, wire, electrical, or plumbing materials, not associated with a current,
in-progress project and not in a lawful storage structure or container. This provision does not apply to a
designated contractor’s yard.
2. Garbage, Recyclables, Compost, and Infestations.
a. Garbage or recyclables not properly stored in a receptacle with a tight-fitting lid.
b. Any accumulation of broken or neglected items, litter, salvage materials, or junk not in an approved
enclosed structure.
c. Creating or maintaining any accumulation of matter, including but not limited to foodstuffs or dead
vegetation (excluding properly maintained residential compost piles).
3. Furniture, Appliances, Furnishings, and Equipment.
a. Any broken or discarded household furniture, furnishings, equipment, or appliance not in an approved
enclosed structure.
b. Any enclosure which may entrap a human or an animal, including accessible refrigeration appliances
that have not had the doors secured or removed.
4. Machinery and Equipment. Any broken or inoperable accumulation of, or part of, machinery or equipment
not in an approved enclosed structure. SVMC 7.05.040(D)(4) shall include such machinery and equipment as
vessels, boats, jet-skis, snowmobiles, aircraft, golf carts, and the like, but shall not include junk vehicles, which
are regulated pursuant to SVMC 7.05.040(N).
E. Fire Hazards. Any stack or accumulation of newspapers, dead vegetation (excluding properly maintained compost
piles), overgrown vegetation, cardboard, or any other paper, cloth, or wood products left in a manner that poses a
substantial risk of combustion or the spread of fire, as determined by the fire marshal.
F. Toxic or Caustic Substances. Improper storage or keeping of any toxic, flammable, or caustic substances or
materials.
Ordinance 25-008 Right-of-Way Permit Procedures and Enforcement Page 2 of 10
DRAFT
G. Smoke, Soot, or Odors. Allowing the escape or emission of any harmful smoke, soot, fumes, gases, or odors
which are offensive or harmful to a reasonable person.
H. Bodies of Water.
1. All stagnant, pooled water in which mosquitoes, flies, or other insects may multiply, excluding any City-
approved structure related to storm drainage systems.
2. The polluting of any waterway, well, or body of water which is not subject to the jurisdiction of another
federal, state, county, special purpose district or city agency.
I. Holes. Any excavated or naturally occurring uncovered holes which are not marked, guarded, or otherwise
secured, and which constitute a concealed danger.
J. Attractive Nuisances. Any accessible nuisance which is attractive to children including, but not limited to,
unattended machinery or equipment, unsecured abandoned or vacant buildings, open and unattended vehicle trunks,
or other unguarded conditions or situations that could injure or trap a child.
K. Noise.
1. Any noise or sound that, originating within a residential zone, intrudes into the property of another person
that exceeds the maximum permissible noise levels pursuant to Chapter 173-60 WAC, as currently adopted and
hereafter amended. Such noise or sound may include, but is not limited to, noise or sound created by use of a
radio, television set, musical instrument, sound amplifier, or other device capable of producing or reproducing
noise or sound; or in connection with the starting, operation, repair, rebuilding, or testing of any vehicle, off-
highway machinery or equipment, or internal combustion engine.
2. The following shall be exempt from the provisions of SVMC 7.05.040(K)(1):
a. Normal use of public rights-of-way;
b. Sounds created by motor vehicles when regulated by Chapter 173-62 WAC;
c. Sounds originating from aircraft in flight and sounds that originate at airports which are directly related
to flight operations;
d. Sounds created by surface carriers engaged in commerce or passenger travel by railroad;
e. Sounds created by warning devices not operating continuously for more than five minutes, or bells,
chimes, or carillons;
f. Sounds created by safety and protective devices where noise suppression would defeat the intent of the
device or is not economically feasible;
g. Sounds created by emergency equipment and work necessary in the interest of law enforcement or for
health, safety or welfare of the community;
h. Sounds originating from officially sanctioned parades and other public events;
i. Sounds created by watercraft, except to the extent that they are regulated by other City or state
regulations;
j. Sounds created by motor vehicles licensed or unlicensed when operated off public highways, except
when such sounds are made in or adjacent to residential property where human beings reside or sleep;
k. Sounds originating from existing natural gas transmission and distribution facilities;
Ordinance 25-008 Right-of-Way Permit Procedures and Enforcement Page 3 of 10
DRAFT
l. Sounds created in conjunction with public work projects or public work maintenance operations
executed at the cost of the federal government, state or municipality;
m. Sounds created in conjunction with the collection of solid waste;
n. Sounds created in conjunction with military operations or training;
o. Sounds originating from organized activities occurring in public parks, playgrounds, gymnasiums,
swimming pools, schools, and other public facilities and public recreational facilities during hours of
operation;
p. Sounds originating from agricultural activities.
3. The following shall be exempt from provisions of SVMC 7.05.040(K)(1) between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and
10:00 p.m.:
a. Sounds originating from residential property relating to temporary projects for the repair or maintenance
of homes, grounds, and appurtenances;
b. Sounds created by the discharge of firearms on authorized shooting ranges;
c. Sounds created by blasting;
d. Sounds created by aircraft engine testing and maintenance not related to flight operations; provided, that
aircraft testing and maintenance shall be conducted at remote sites whenever possible;
e. Sounds created by the installation or repair of essential utility services.
4. The following shall be exempt from the provisions of SVMC 7.05.040(K)(1) between the hours of 7:00 a.m.
and 10:00 p.m., or when conducted beyond 1,000 feet of any residence where human beings reside and sleep at
any hour:
a. Sounds originating from temporary construction sites as a result of construction activity;
b. Sounds originating from the quarrying, blasting and mining of minerals or materials, including, but not
limited to, sand, gravel, rock and clay, as well as the primary reduction and processing of minerals or
materials for concrete batching, asphalt mixing and rock crushers;
c. Sounds originating from uses on properties which have been specifically conditioned to meet certain
noise standards by an appropriate City hearing body.
L. Dust. Any disturbance of any land area, or permitting the same, without taking affirmative measures to suppress
and minimize the blowing and scattering of dust, which unreasonably interferes with the peace, comfort, or repose
of a reasonable person. This provision does not include permitted agricultural activities.
M. Yard Sales. The holding or permitting of either:
1. A yard sale on the same lot for (a) more than seven consecutive days; (b) more than two consecutive
weekends; or
2. More than three separate yard sale events in one calendar year.
The prohibition under SVMC 7.05.040(M) shall only apply to dwellings, including but not limited to single-family,
multifamily, and duplex dwellings.
N. Junk Vehicles and Unlicensed Vehicles. All junk vehicles and unlicensed vehicles, or parts thereof, placed,
stored, or permitted to be located on private property within the City limits. SVMC 7.05.040(N) does not apply to:
Ordinance 25-008 Right-of-Way Permit Procedures and Enforcement Page 4 of 10
DRAFT
1. Any vehicle or part thereof that is completely enclosed within a lawful structure so that it is not visible from
the street or other public or private property;
2. Any vehicle or part thereof that is stored or parked in a lawful manner at a (a) licensed vehicle dismantler or
licensed vehicle dealer business, and the property is fenced pursuant to RCW 46.80.130, or (b) legally
established vehicle repair business.
3. A junk vehicle does not include a vehicle which is in the process of being repaired, as evidenced by the good
faith efforts of the vehicle owner. This exception shall include having up to one “parts” vehicle, from which
parts are being salvaged concurrent with the repair process for the vehicle being excepted from compliance in
SVMC 7.05.040. Good faith efforts of repair may include producing invoices showing work or parts purchased
for repair or renovation within 30 days prior to issuance of the notice of violation, or a declaration under
penalty of perjury that the vehicle is in the process of being repaired and has been worked on within 30 days
prior to issuance of the notice of violation. This exception allows up to 60 days for good faith repair. Upon
good cause shown, the city manager or designee shall have the discretion to grant one additional 60-day
exception period pursuant to SVMC 7.05.040(N). Under no circumstance shall any good faith efforts of repair
extend for more than 120 days, after which time this exception shall no longer apply. This exception shall apply
to one vehicle and one parts vehicle per parcel of land in any consecutive 12-month period;
4. There shall be allowed as exceptions to SVMC 7.05.040(N) up to one junk vehicle or unlicensed vehicle in
R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4 zones, so long as it is completely sight-screened by maintained landscaping, a
maintained landscaped berm, or fencing, as allowed pursuant to any currently adopted SVMC landscaping,
berm, or fencing requirements pursuant to Chapter 22.70 SVMC.
O. Graffiti. Any graffiti on public or private property.
P. Development Code Violations. Any violation pursuant to SVMC Titles 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and/or 25. (Ord.
23-019 § 2, 2023; Ord. 23-010 § 1, 2023; Ord. 18-001 § 2, 2018; Ord. 17-010 § 1, 2017; Ord. 17-004 § 3, 2017;
Ord. 12-026 § 3, 2012; Ord. 08-024 § 2, 2008; Ord. 06-004 § 2, 2006; Ord. 05-014 § 3, 2005; Ord. 04-038 § 3,
2004; Ord. 03-083 § 4, 2003).
Q. Camping on Private Property
1. Except as otherwise provided herein, it shall be a public nuisance to camp on private property.
2. Camping” or “camping” means to pitch, erect or occupy camp facilities, or to use camp paraphernalia or
both, for the purpose of, or in such a way as will facilitate, remaining overnight, or parking a camper,
recreational vehicle, trailer, or other vehicle for the purpose of remaining overnight.
3. “Camp facilities” has the same meaning as defined in SVMC 7.50.015.
4. “Camp paraphernalia” has the same meaning as defined in SVMC 7.50.015.
5. If the City obtains an order of abatement due to unlawful camping on private property, then prior to and in
connection with removing personal property from the private real property, the City must comply with the
procedures identified in SVMC 7.50.030(B)(1) – (2).
6. SVMC 7.05.040(Q) does not apply to:
a. Legally established campgrounds and RV parks.
b. Temporary use of a recreational vehicle with a valid City of Spokane Valley Temporary Use Permit
pursuant to SVMC 19.65.130 and SVMC 19.160.040.
c. Camping on property without a legally established habitable residence where (i) the property owner is
among those camping, and (ii) such camping does not exceed 14 days in a calendar year.
Ordinance 25-008 Right-of-Way Permit Procedures and Enforcement Page 5 of 10
DRAFT
d. Camping on property with a legally established habitable residence, but only if and while (i) a property
owner, lessee, or tenant of the property is physically present, (ii) said owner, lessee, or tenant gives express
consent for such camping, and (iii) no nuisance conditions or activity is present on or emanating from the
property. Contiguous parcels under common ownership shall be considered one parcel for purposes of
enforcing this subsection.
7. Beginning in the year 2026, staff shall provide the Spokane Valley City Council with a written report during
the first fiscal quarter of each year. This report shall identify (a) the number of complaints the City received
during the preceding calendar year alleging prohibited camping on private property, (b) the number of private
property camping violations City staff determined had occurred, and (c) a summary of the City’s enforcement
efforts. The report shall separately identify complaints and violations of subsections 6.b, 6.c, and 6.d above.
R. Objects in Right-of-Way.
1. Right-of-way obstructions. Any object, construction, placement of material, or accumulation of material that
inhibits or obstructs the use of a public right-of-way including, but not limited to, landscape materials,
equipment, machinery, portable toilets, storage containers, shopping carts, refuse containers, and signs. SVMC
7.05.040(R) does not include objects, obstructions, or use of the public right of way for official purposes
authorized by the City of Spokane Valley or where a valid right-of-way or other permit has been issued that
specifically allows for the obstruction.
2. Abandoned Property in right-of-way.
a. Persons owning or occupying property that abuts any public right-of-way shall not allow any abandoned
property to remain on their property or in the public right-of-way adjacent to their property line.
b. Except for vehicles and licensed trailers, all property placed in the public right-of-way, including but not
limited to any personal and household items, furniture, appliances, machinery, equipment, building materials,
or other items, shall be deemed abandoned and a public nuisance in violation of this chapter after being in the
right-of-way for 48 hours. This includes, but is not limited to all property left in the public right-of-way for
more than 48 hours because of an eviction or a forcible entry and detainer or unlawful detainer action.
3. Failure to obtain, or adhere to the terms of, a right-of-way permit pursuant to chapter 9.50 SVMC, or any
other violation of chapter 9.50 SVMC.
Section 3. Adopting new chapter 9.50 SVMC. Chapter 9.50 SVMC is hereby adopted as
follows:
9.50.010 Right-of-Way Permit Applicability
9.50.020 Expiration
9.50.030 Emergency Repairs
9.50.040 Right-of-Way Permit Application
9.50.050 Right-of-Way Permit Fees
9.50.060 Application Process
9.50.070 Construction Standards
9.50.080 Maintaining Access
9.50.090 Traffic Control
9.50.100 Damage to Existing Infrastructure
9.50.110 City’s Right to Restore Right-of-Way and Easements
9.50.120 Insurance – Evidence
9.50.130 Indemnification and Hold Harmless
9.50.140 Rules and Policy
9.50.150 Violations – Penalties
9.50.160 Liability
9.50.010 Right-of-Way Permit Applicability.
Ordinance 25-008 Right-of-Way Permit Procedures and Enforcement Page 6 of 10
DRAFT
Unless exempt under (1), (2), or (3) herein, a right-of-way permit is required of any person or entity who performs
construction work or otherwise engages in activity that creates an obstruction within existing City rights-of-way,
easements, or other City-owned property reserved for the travelling public. A right-of-way permit authorizes a
permittee to perform work or conduct activity in a right-of-way, easement, or other City owned property reserved for
the travelling public.
Permits shall not be required for the following:
1. Work done by or for the City within its rights-of-way, easement, and/or City owned property.
2. Work that is two hours or less in duration, and (a) maintains 10 feet of travel width in each direction on a
nonarterial street, (b) does not close any lanes on an arterial street, (c) does not involve excavation within the
rights-of-way, and (d) does not involve cutting or placement of pavement, sidewalks, curbs or gutters.
3. Owner or tenant provided maintenance of residential landscaping, provided that all work remains outside of
the roadway. For the purposes of this section SVMC 9.50.010(3), maintenance of residential landscaping does
not include placement of any object including but not limited to any structure, building, plant, vegetation,
landscaping material, or tree within the right-of-way. All such objects shall be deemed nuisances and subject to
enforcement pursuant to chapter 7.05 SVMC.
9.50.020 Expiration.
Right-of-way permits issued between April 1st and September 30th are valid for 30 days after the date of issuance,
with a one-time 30-day extension available. Right-of-way permits issued between October 1st and March 31st shall
be valid until the following April 30thwith one or more 30-day extensions or to a date determined by City Engineer.
9.50.030. Emergency Repairs.
In the case of an emergency repair, a private or public utility may commence work prior to obtaining a permit,
provided the person responsible for the work obtains a construction and right-of-way permit within 48 hours after
work is commenced or on the first City business day following said elapsed 48-hour period.
9.50.040 Right-of-Way Permit Application.
A. No right-of-way permit shall be issued unless a written application is submitted and approved by the City. The
application shall, at a minimum, contain the following:
1. Construction plans or drawings approved by the City, if required;
2. A traffic control plan;3. The period of time during which the right-of-way will be obstructed;
4. Proof that the contractor’s and all subcontractors’ meet state and City licensing requirements; and
5. Insurance policies for the contractor(s) and subcontractor(s) pursuant to SVMC 9.50.120.
B. Depending upon the nature and extent of the construction activity or work, the City may require engineering,
restoration and drainage plans prepared by a Washington-licensed engineer at the applicant’s sole cost and expense.
9.50.050 Right-of-Way Permit Fees.
Permit fees shall be assessed in accordance with the currently adopted Spokane Valley master fee schedule. In
addition to any other penalty, fee, or claim authorized by law, any party responsible for work or other activities for
which a permit is required pursuant to this chapter but not obtained prior to the work or activity, shall be required to
obtain the necessary permit, the cost of which shall be double the cost of the necessary permit in accordance with the
currently adopted Spokane Valley master fee schedule.
9.50.060 Application Process.
Applications shall be submitted not less than three (3) business days before any work or activity is planned to
commence. The City shall not be responsible for any delays in issuance of a permit for any reason including but not
limited to the application missing information, the complexity of the project, staffing levels, the extent of traffic
control, or traffic control conflicts. The City encourages applicants to submit complete applications as soon as
possible. Applicant shall notify the City 48 hours in advance of work commencing in the City-owned right-of-way,
Ordinance 25-008 Right-of-Way Permit Procedures and Enforcement Page 7 of 10
DRAFT
easements, or City-owned properties. Applicant shall notify the City within 1 business day of the completion of
work contemplated by the subject permit. Construction notification signage shall be required for permitted work
durations longer than 6 days and shall identify project contractor and contact information in accordance with
Spokane Valley Street Standards Chapter 9.7.1.
9.50.070 Construction Standards.
All work within the City rights-of-way, easements, or on City-owned property shall be in accordance with adopted
City standards in effect at the time of the application for the permit. These include but are not limited to the
Spokane Valley street standards; the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual; the Inland Northwest Regional
Pavement Cut Policy; the State of Washington adopted Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD);
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal
Construction; and applicable standards of the American Public Works Association (APWA).
9.50.080 Maintaining Access.
In the event it is necessary to excavate the entire width of the street, no more than half of the street shall be opened
for construction and closed to traffic at one time. Such portion of the work shall be backfilled and completed before
the remaining portion of the street may be excavated. If it is impossible, infeasible or unsafe to permit the work
while maintaining an open lane for traffic, the City may, with the concurrence of the chief of police and fire chief,
permit the street to be blocked for a short period of time where suitable detours can be provided and the public will
not be unnecessarily inconvenienced. The permittee shall furnish facilities, such as bridges or other suitable means,
or clearly identify appropriate detours, to allow the flow of traffic without unnecessary congestion.
9.50.090 Traffic Control.
Any person or company that performs construction work or otherwise engages in activity within the existing City
rights-of-way, or on City-owned infrastructure, is responsible for all traffic control and assumes the responsibility to
maintain appropriate signage, signals and barricades that protect the public safety, in accordance with the State of
Washington adopted MUTCD. The person or company shall provide for the safe operation of all equipment,
vehicles and persons within the right-of-way.
Any person setting up or maintaining traffic control devices is required to have a valid traffic control flagger card
from the state of Washington or as otherwise allowed pursuant to WAC 296-155-305(6).
9.50.100 Damage to Existing Infrastructure.
All damage to existing public or private infrastructure and/or property during the progress of the construction work
or activity shall be the responsibility of the permittee or in the case where no permit was issued, the responsible
party. Methods and materials for such repair shall conform to adopted City standards. If the permittee or responsible
party fails to furnish the necessary labor and materials for such repairs, the City shall have the authority to cause said
necessary labor and materials to be furnished by the City and the cost shall be charged against the permittee or
responsible party. Such charge shall be immediately paid by the permittee and shall, if not paid on demand, be
deemed a valid claim on the permittee’s bond filed with the City. Nothing herein shall be construed as to limit the
authority of the City to seek any other remedy available by law.
9.50.110 City’s Right to Restore Right-of-Way and Easements.
A. If the permittee fails to restore any City right-of-way, easement, or City-owned property to its original and proper
condition upon the expiration of the time fixed by such permit or shall otherwise fail to complete the right-of-way
construction work covered by such permit or if the work of the permittee is defective and the defect is discovered
within three years from the completion of the right-of-way construction work, the City or designee shall have the
right to do all work and things necessary to restore the right-of-way and/or easement and to complete the right-of-
way construction work.
B. The permittee shall be liable for all costs and expenses of restoration or completion. The City shall have a cause
of action for all fees, expenses and amounts paid for such work. Following demand, the City may enforce its rights
provided under this section by commencing a court action or pursuant to chapter 17.100 SVMC. No additional
permits shall be granted until the invoice for City-performed work has been paid. Nothing herein shall be construed
as to limit the authority of the City to seek any other remedy available by law.
9.50.120 Insurance – Evidence.
Ordinance 25-008 Right-of-Way Permit Procedures and Enforcement Page 8 of 10
DRAFT
Prior to the commencement of work within the right-of-way, the applicant shall furnish the City satisfactory
evidence in writing that the persons and/or entities performing the work have in force, during the performance of the
construction work or activity, commercial general liability insurance of not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence and
$2,000,000 general aggregate duly issued by an insurance company authorized to do business in this state. The City
may increase the amount of insurance coverage for larger jobs as necessary to protect the interest of the public. In
addition, the policy shall name the City as an additional named insured. The City may reduce or remove the
insurance limits if good cause exists, such as for residential landscaping completed by the owner or tenant.
9.50.130 Indemnification and Hold Harmless.
The permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers
from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits, including attorney fees, arising out of the permit issued
under this chapter except as may be caused by the sole negligence or willful conduct on the part of the City.
However, should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that indemnity provision is subject to RCW 4.24.115,
then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or
resulting from the concurrent negligence of the permittee and the City, its officers, officials, employees, and
volunteers, the permittee’s liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of the permittee’s negligence.
9.50.140 Rules and Policy.
To implement the provisions of this chapter and provide for the public health and safety, the City, under the
supervision of the city manager or designee, may develop and adopt rules, policies and forms consistent with this
chapter. All adopted rules, policies and forms shall be filed with the city clerk.
9.50.150 Violations – Penalties.
A violation of this chapter constitutes a nuisance and is subject to all enforcement actions and penalties pursuant to
Chapter 17.100 SVMC. This section in no way limits the authority of law enforcement to enforce parking
prohibitions and/or traffic laws. Further, nothing herein shall be construed as to limit the authority of the City to
seek any other remedy available by law.
9.50.160 Liability.
The express intent of the City of Spokane Valley is that the responsibility for compliance with the provisions of
chapter 9.50 SVMC shall rest with the permit applicant and their agents, or the responsible party of unpermitted
work. Chapter 9.50 SVMC and its provisions are adopted with the express intent to protect the health, safety, and
welfare of the general public and are not intended to protect any particular class of individuals or organizations.
Section 4. Other sections unchanged. All other provisions of Title 9 SVMC and SVMC
7.05.040 no specifically referenced herein shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 5. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should
be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or
phrase of this Ordinance.
Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after
the date of publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City.
PASSED by the City Council this day of , 2025.
Mayor, Pam Haley
ATTEST:
Marci Patterson, City Clerk
Ordinance 25-008 Right-of-Way Permit Procedures and Enforcement Page 9 of 10
DRAFT
Approved As To Form:
Kelly Konkright, City Attorney
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
Ordinance 25-008 Right-of-Way Permit Procedures and Enforcement Page 10 of 10
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: June 3, 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: First Reading – Ordinance 25-011 Endangerment with a Controlled Substance
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 9A.42.100, RCW 9A.36.031, RCW 9A.36.050
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council provided consensus to place this topic on the
advanced agenda; May 6, 2025 – Administrative Report on Endangerment with a Controlled Substance.
BACKGROUND: On May 6, 2025, Spokane Valley Police Chief Dave Ellis and Lt. Jerad Kiehn provided
City Council an administrative report regarding gaps that exist in state law as it relates to controlled
substance exposure to children and dependent adults.
Children and dependent adults exposed to fentanyl, opioids, and other controlled substances face significant
risks, including overdose, developmental delays, permanent physical and psychological harm, or death.
Currently, state law does not explicitly address these opioid-related threats. For example, RCW 9A.42.100
“Endangerment with a controlled substance,” a class B felony, explicitly references and only applies to
methamphetamine and other amphetamine-related substances, not fentanyl or opioids. Therefore, in cases
involving accidental fentanyl or opioid overdoses, if methamphetamine is not present, law enforcement
rd
must charge with 3degree assault (class C felony) or reckless endangerment (gross misdemeanor), which
both carry lower penalties than the endangerment with a controlled substance statute. This leads to gaps in
enforcement and the punishment does not comport with the severity of these cases.
Ordinance 25-011, adopting a new chapter 8.60 to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, reflects Council’s
direction to fill the current gap in state law by passing an ordinance making it a gross misdemeanor to
knowingly or recklessly permit a child or dependent person to ingest, inhale, absorb, or have contact with
a controlled substance. This would provide law enforcement with another tool to protect children and
dependent persons who are exposed to controlled substances at the time that the risk arises. The City
continues to have discussions with Spokane County related to this ordinance and will bring forward any
updates to Council if the Council were to vote to advance Ordinance 25-011 to a second reading.
As cities are limited to passing ordinances punishable up to 364 days and a five thousand dollar fine, the
City will also continue to encourage the state legislature to adopt a felony statute prohibiting this same
conduct.
OPTIONS: Move to advance Ordinance 25-011 to a second reading; or take other action Council deems
appropriate.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move to advance Ordinance 25-011, related to
Endangerment with a Controlled Substance, to a second reading.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A
STAFF CONTACT: City Attorney Kelly Konkright, Senior Deputy City Attorney Tony Beattie
_________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
PowerPoint Presentation - Endangerment with a Controlled Substance
Draft Ordinance
DRAFT
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 25 – 011
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 8.60
OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ENDANGERMENT WITH
A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO
WHEREAS, pursuant to the police powers afforded to the City within Article XI, section 11 of the
Washington State Constitution, and RCW 35A.11.020, the City has the authority to adopt and enforce
ordinances to protect the public health, safety and welfare; and
WHEREAS, according to the Washington State Department of Health, two people die of opioid-
related overdoses in Washinton each day; and
WHEREAS, according to the Spokane Regional Health District’s (SRHD) Opioid Dashboard, the
number of overdose deaths in Spokane County has steadily increased since 2020; and
WHEREAS, the Opioid Dashboard shows a total of 314 controlled substance overdose deaths in
Spokane County for 2024, 83% of which were related to opioids; and
WHEREAS, in two years, 2023 through 2024, SRHD reported a total of 734 drug related
emergency department visits among those under the age of 18, and a total of 663 among those age 65 and
older; and
WHEREAS, the presentation of controlled substances and the paraphernalia used to ingest them
have consistently evolved to appear as candies, powders, utensils, sprays, and powder; and
WHEREAS, tragically, minors and dependent persons are especially at risk of misconstruing a
dangerous controlled substances and related paraphernalia for a harmless food, treat, or toy; and
WHEREAS, RCW 9A.42.100 only criminalizes knowingly or intentionally permitting dependent
children or adults to be exposed to, ingest, inhale or have contact with methamphetamine or specific
ingredients utilized for its production; and
WHEREAS, the City supports efforts of the State Legislature to amend RCW 9A.42.100 in such a
way that criminalizes recklessly or knowingly permitting a child or dependent person to be exposed to,
ingest, inhale, absorb or have contact with any controlled substance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley find that it is appropriate and necessary
in protecting the public health, safety, and welfare to take immediate steps to protect children and other
vulnerable populations from the dangers of exposure to controlled substances.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, do ordain as
follows:
Section 1. Findings. Illicit use of controlled substances in Washington State, and in Spokane
County, has been and remains a public health crisis affecting the entire region and local communities. The
Spokane Regional Health District (SRHD) has recorded increases of emergency department visits and
deaths related to controlled substances in general, and particularly those related to the use of opioids and
fentanyl. According to the SRHD Opioid Dashboard, the number of emergency department visits related
to drugs among children and those 65 years of age and older in Spokane County has remained at or above
the rates reported for all of Washington. The City Council finds that the opioid crisis, and the unlawful use
Ordinance 25-011 Endangerment with a Controlled Substance Page 1 of 3
DRAFT
of controlled substances in general, has created an environment that exposes children and dependent persons
to risk of serious injury or death. Due to the foregoing, this Ordinance 25-011, is necessary to protect the
public health, safety, and welfare of all persons, but especially the most vulnerable of our community.
Section 2. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance 25-011 is to adopt a new chapter of the
Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) that specifically criminalizes the reckless or knowing exposure
of controlled substances to children and dependent adults.
Section 2. Adoption. A new chapter 8.60 SVMC is hereby adopted to read as follows:
Chapter 8.60
Endangerment with a Controlled Substance
Sections:
8.60.010 Definitions
8.60.020 Endangerment with a Controlled Substance
8.60.030 Penalty for violation
8.60.040 Preemption
8.60.010 Definitions.
For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:
A. “Cannabis” shall mean the same as the term is defined in RCW 69.50.101.
B. “Child” shall mean the same as the term is defined in RCW 9A.42.010.
C. “Controlled substance” shall mean the same as the term is defined in RCW 69.50.101.
D. “Dependent Person” shall mean the same as the term is defined in RCW 9A.42.010.
8.60.020 Endangerment with a Controlled Substance.
A. A person is guilty of the crime of endangerment with a controlled substance if the person
knowingly or recklessly permits a child or dependent person to ingest, inhale, absorb, or have
contact with a controlled substance other than cannabis, unless the controlled substance was
obtained directly from, or pursuant to, a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while
acting in the course of his or her professional practice.
B. Administering or providing a controlled substance to a child or dependent person in the
course of delivering health care services is not a violation of this chapter.
8.60.030 Penalty for Violations.
A. Any person who violates this chapter is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable by up to
364 days in jail and a $5,000 fine.
8.60.040 Preemption
In the event the Washington State Legislature passes a law preempting this chapter, this chapter
shall cease to have effect on the same date the statute comes into effect. Any violation of this
chapter that occurs prior to the preempting statute coming into effect may be prosecuted and
punished pursuant to this chapter.
Ordinance 25-011 Endangerment with a Controlled Substance Page 2 of 3
DRAFT
Section 3. Other sections unchanged. All other provisions of Title 8 SVMC not specifically
referenced herein shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 4. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should
be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or
phrase of this Ordinance.
Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after
the date of publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City.
PASSED by the City Council this day of , 2025.
Mayor, Pam Haley
ATTEST:
Marci Patterson, City Clerk
Approved As To Form:
Kelly Konkright, City Attorney
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
Ordinance 25-011 Endangerment with a Controlled Substance Page 3 of 3
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: June 3, 2025 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: consent old business new business public hearing
information admin. report pending legislation executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration – Councilmember Merkel Settlement Offer
regarding Spokane County Superior Court Case No. 25-2-00710-32
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: City Council Governance Manual; chapter 42.56 RCW; chapter
40.14 RCW
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
12/19/2024 (Resolution No. 24-015) – City Council publicly censured and removed
Councilmember Merkel from his Spokane County Regional Opioid Abatement Council committee
assignment. The discipline was based on the City Hearing Examiner’s findings in APP-2024-001,
including those determining that Councilmember Merkel violated the Governance Manual’s social
media policy by posting about City business on his personal social media account.
2/4/2025 – City Council, by a majority vote, directed the City Manager to initiate a court action
against Councilmember Merkel to obtain a court order determining whether posts regarding City
business on his personal social media accounts are public records and compelling him to comply
with the City Council’s Governance Manual and the Washinton State Public Records Act.
BACKGROUND:
On June 11 and August 1, 2024, Councilmember Yaeger submitted written complaints to the City
Manager alleging that Councilmember Merkel violated the Council Conduct Standards identified
in Governance Manual Ch. 5 related to his use of social media accounts and not producing public
records pursuant to the Washington State Public Records Act (“PRA”). Thereafter, the City
retained independent third-party investigator, Rebecca Dean, to investigate the alleged Council
Conduct Standard violations. Ms. Dean conducted a thorough investigation and on September
3, 2024, issued her Investigative Findings concluding that (1) Councilmember Merkel’s posts on
his personal Nextdoor social media account that relate to the conduct of city government or the
performance of his office violate the Governance Manual’s social media policy, (2) multiple posts
by Councilmember Merkel on his personal Nextdoor account are more likely than not public
records and were not correctly preserved or retained, and (3) by refusing to search, segregate,
and produce such posts at the City’s request when responsive to public records requests, and by
submitting an affidavit that does not comply with his obligations under the Public Records Act,
Councilmember Merkel probably violated the Public Records Act and acted inconsistently with his
duty as a Councilmember.
Councilmember Merkel timely appealed the investigation findings to the City’s independently
contracted Hearing Examiner Andrew Kottkamp. On October 24, 2024, Hearing Examiner
Kottkamp held a hearing during which Councilmember Merkel presented his defense, including
introducing testimony of his own witnesses, introducing documentary evidence, and cross-
examining the investigator’s testimony. On December 13, 2024, City Hearing Examiner Andrew
Kottkamp issued his written decision concluding, among other things, that Councilmember Merkel
posted about City business on his personal Nextdoor social media account, subsequently edited
some of those posts and posts of others, that the posts were made in violation of the Governance
Manual’s social media policy, and that Councilmember Merkel’s declarations failed the good faith
requirements of Nissen v. Pierce County, 183 Wn.2d 863 (2015). The City Hearing Examiner
rejected Councilmember Merkel’s defenses and recommended disciplinary action against
Councilmember Merkel.
Based on the investigative report and City Hearing Examiner’s decision, the City Council voted
on December 19, 2024, to publicly censure and remove Councilmember Merkel from his Spokane
County Regional Opioid Abatement Council committee assignment.
Despite (1) the independent attorney investigator’s findings, (2) the Hearing Examiner’s decision,
and (3) being disciplined by Council, Councilmember Merkel continued (and still continues) to
violate the Governance Manual and increase the City’s exposure to financial liability under the
Washington Public Records Act by posting about City business and/or the performance of his
office on his personal Nextdoor social media account. Due to the risk to the City and its taxpayers
posed by Councilmember Merkel’s failure to comply, on February 4, 2024, City Council voted to
commence a court action against Councilmember Merkel to, among other things, compel him to
comply with the City Council’s Governance Manual so the City can avoid liability under the PRA
for Councilmember Merkel’s failure to adhere to the social media policy – the purpose of which is
to ensure councilmembers’ social media use does not cause a PRA violation.
The City filed a civil action against Councilmember Merkel on February 11, 2025, seeking a court
order determining his personal social media posts regarding City business are public records
under the Washington Public Records Act (“PRA”) and compelling Councilmember Merkel to
comply with the Governance Manual’s social media policy and the PRA. Councilmember Merkel
is represented by Patrick Kirby Law Office, PLLC. The court has not issued any orders or rulings
in the action.
The City received a settlement offer from Councilmember Merkel’s attorney on May 13, 2025 (see
email string attached hereto). The terms of the settlement offer are as follows:
1. The City dismisses its case against Councilmember Merkel with prejudice – “with
prejudice” generally means the City would be giving up the ability to pursue the same
claims based on events that occurred before the effective date of the settlement.
2. An “independent master” be appointed to review Councilmember Merkel’s personal social
media posts, and determine whether and which posts constitute a public record. The City
and Councilmember Merkel would have to agree on who would serve as the “independent
master”.
3. Councilmember Merkel would only be legally obligated to produce those personal social
media posts the “independent master” determined to be public records as defined by the
Washington Public Records Act.
4. The City be responsible for 100% of the expenses charged by the “independent master.”
5. The City reimburse Councilmember Merkel “for all of his attorney fees, both past attorney
fees and those incurred in the future as they pertain to this dispute.”
Pursuant to the Open Public Meetings Act, chapter 42.30 RCW, this item is brought forward for
the City Council to discuss the settlement offer and determine what action, if any, is appropriate.
If the City were to agree, the settlement would not result in a court order either (a) determining
whether or the extent to which Councilmember Merkel’s posts regarding City business are public
records when made using his personal social media accounts, (b) compelling Councilmember
Merkel to produce posts regarding City business, or (c) compelling Councilmember Merkel to
comply with the Governance Manual’s social media policy going forward. As such, if
Councilmember Merkel were to either violate the settlement agreement or continue to post about
City business on his personal social media in violation of the Governance Manual, the City would
have to start from square one with a new court action.
The terms of the proposed settlement would also require the City to incur the additional expense
of paying for an independent attorney to review Councilmember Merkel’s personal social media
for public records on an ongoing basis rather than utilize existing trained staff that the City already
employs to regularly conduct such reviews in connection with public records requests. Moreover,
much of Councilmember Merkel’s social media content has already been reviewed by two
independent attorneys (Rebecca Dean – investigator, and Andrew Kottkamp – City Hearing
Examiner) – both of which were paid for by the City. Both determined Councilmember Merkel
violated the Governance Manual social media policy and did not comply with his good faith
obligations under Washington case law. Councilmember Merkel did not adhere to those
determinations, and thus it would remain to be seen whether he would adhere to a third
independent attorney’s determinations in this regard when not in his favor.
OPTIONS: Discuss
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Council take action as it deems to be within the best
interests of the City.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
The financial impact of accepting the offer is not known. The cost to pay for Councilmember
Merkel’s past and future attorney fees related to this dispute is unknown. Likewise, the cost to
pay an independent attorney to review all of Councilmember Merkel’s personal social media (both
past and in the future) is dependent on several unknown variables (such as the hourly rate a
selected “independent master” would charge, the volume of past and future social media posts
that would be reviewed, the cost to resolve disagreements with the independent master’s
decisions, etc.). Moreover, if Councilmember Merkel were to not comply with the terms of the
settlement or continue to violate the social media policy in the future, then the City would likely
need to institute another court action to obtain relief.
STAFF CONTACT: Kelly E. Konkright, City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No. 24-015 (to which the Hearing Examiner Decision APP-2024-0001 is
attached as Attachment B)
2. Email string between Councilmember Merkel’s attorney (Patrick Kirby) and City’s trial
attorneys in this matter (Reid Johnson and Michael Hines of Lukins & Annis, P.S.), ending
5/13/2025
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: June 3, 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: Admin Report Emergency Plans Update
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: The City of Spokane Valley is a party to the regional Amended
Interlocal Agreement with Spokane County Emergency Management (SCEM) for emergency
management services established pursuant to:
RCW 39.34, Interlocal Cooperation Act
RCW 38.52.070, Local organizations and joint local organizations authorized --
Establishment, operation -- Emergency powers, procedures Communication plans.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council approved a three-year renewal of the
Emergency Management Interlocal Agreement (ILA) on May 9, 2023. An update on
emergency management services was provided on July 25, 2023, an update on the
Continuity of Operations Plan project took place June 25, 2024 and the Plan was adopted by
City Council on November 12, 2024.
BACKGROUND: At the May 13, 2025 meeting, Council asked for an update on
emergency planning and exercises. The City paused a majority of the work on emergency
planning during the state legislative session and has now resumed coordination with SCEM
since the session ended on May 12 to review our
progress and discuss next steps.
As noted in previous updates to Council, there is a family of plans the City is working on. The
plans include the Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP), Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) and the
Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). Efforts to implement the COOP, update the HMP and
develop the EOP are ongoing and on a parallel track as time and resources permit. Below is a
status update on each.
COOP
The primary purpose of the COOP is to preserve continuity of essential city services during an
emergency or incident. This plan was adopted last November and the City is working on
implementation measures listed in the plan to ensure readiness for future training exercises.
Some of those key tasks include orientation meetings with each division, preparing
department/division procedures and other follow up measures and identifying/securing essential
records. Another key requirement of our contract with SCEM is developing a National Incident
Management System (NIMS) and Incident Command System (ICS) compliance plan to ensure
that all levels of government have a common structure to manage an emergency.
Department and division meetings will continue through the summer and fall to work on follow
up measures and discuss recommended Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
training classes. A COOP training exercise, with guidance from SCEM, will likely take place
after the 2026 fire season as SCEM does not conduct training exercises during this time.
HMP
Spokane County and its partnership of local governments develop and maintain a Hazard
Mitigation Plan to reduce risks from natural disasters and comply with the Disaster Mitigation
Act, federal legislation that requires proactive, pre-disaster planning as a prerequisite for
funding. The City of Spokane Valley maintains its own annex (Chapter 7 of Volume 2) in the
The last HMP was published by the County in 2020 and an update is required every five years.
Participating in hazard mitigation planning allows the City to remain eligible for FEMA grants or
aid. This effort was scheduled to begin in 2024 but there was a delay at the federal level in
providing FEMA funding to pay for the contractor.
Spokane County Emergency Management held a kickoff meeting with partner agencies and
their consultant on May 21. The City is currently working on updating our critical facilities list and
discussing outreach efforts for the HMP and the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) updates, as
there is some overlap in the plans. One of those outreach opportunities will be at the Spokane
Valley Farmers Market (dates to be determined). In addition to outreach over the summer, a
draft HMP will be available for public review in the fall. Details will be announced via our regular
communication methods (eNews, news release, social media, website, etc.).
EOP
While the COOP focuses on continuity of essential services, the Emergency Operations Plan
focuses on emergency response and recovery efforts.
Initial discussion about the Emergency Operations Plan took place with Emergency
Management on May 12. SCEM recommended further discussion about the best planning
approach and model for Spokane Valley, as a contract city. A follow up meeting is scheduled for
June 5.
Regional Training
Periodically, SCEM provides regional training and invites local government staff and elected
officials to participate. ,
nd
February and their 2 a
The public can help by preparing their families and households for emergencies and disasters
and by subscribing to alert services to stay informed. Recommended resources include:
www.ready.gov
www.redcross.org
Spokane County Emergency Management
o ALERT Spokane or Code Red App
o Community Resilience webpage
Members of the public can also volunteer with Spokane County Emergency Management or
with one of their partners. Examples include Search and Rescue, Auxiliary Communication
Services, Human Evacuation Animal Rescue Team, Disaster Assistance Response Team and
SCOPE. Visit www.spokanecounty.gov/1811 for more information about these volunteer
opportunities.
OPTIONS: Discussion.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A
STAFF CONTACT: Legislative Policy Coordinator/Project Manager Virginia Clough and
Spokane County Emergency Management Planning Manager Mark Conrad
ATTACHMENTS: None
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: June 3, 2025 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: consent old business new business public hearing
information admin. report pending legislation executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Proposed Resolution #25-011: Authorization of qualified public
depositories the City may conduct financial transactions with, and Councilmembers and City
officers with signing authority.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 3.55.010.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: No action has been taken on proposed Resolution 25-
011; however, similar resolutions have come forward approximately every two years or as needed
to reflect changes in the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, longest serving Councilmember, and relevant staff
members.
BACKGROUND: SVMC 3.55.010 requires that the City Council authorize by resolution which
qualified financial depositories (banks) the City may use to make payments on claims or
obligations, and who has authority to sign checks for the City. This resolution is being proposed
to change at this time to reflect a name change for the Finance Director. It is proposed to be
included in a future consent agenda for approval due to the clerical nature of the change.
OPTIONS: Information only at this point. This resolution will be included in a future consent
agenda for approval unless Council wishes to pull it out for separate discussion.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: None at this time. This resolution will be included in a
future consent agenda for approval.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: This action will result in no additional out-of-pocket costs to the
City.
STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Walls, Finance Director
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution #25-011
DRAFT
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 25-011
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, DECLARING WHICH QUALIFIED PUBLIC DEPOSITORIES THE CITY IS
AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS WITH, DECLARING WHICH
COUNCIL MEMBERS AND CITY OFFICERS HAVE SIGNING AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO
SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE 3.55.010; REPEALING RESOLUTION 24-002, AND
OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO.
WHEREAS, the City Council has authority, pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code
3.55.010 to declare by resolution which qualified public depositories the City may use to pay its
claims or obligations, and to declare three Councilmembers and those City officers who are
authorized to make payments on claims or obligations of the City; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary from time-to-time to update which qualified financial
depositories the City does its banking with, as well as to update those Councilmembers and City
officers who are authorized to sign checks on behalf of the City at those depositoriesor
otherwise conduct the financial affairsof the City.
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley,
Spokane County, Washington, as follows:
Section 1. Authorized Qualified Public Depositories for Making Payments on Claims
or Obligations of the City. The City of Spokane Valley is authorized to use Banner Bank,
Mountain West Bank, and other public depositories as listed on the Washington Public Deposit
Protection Commission listing of approved banks, for public deposits, checks, and making fund
transfers to and from accounts.
Section 2. Councilmembers Designated to Have Signature Authority at Qualified
Financial Depositoriesfor Making Payments on Claims or Obligations of the City. Pursuant to
SVMC 3.55.010, the following Councilmembers are given signing authority on behalf of the
City to make payments on claims or obligations of the City:
Pam Haley
Tim Hattenburg
Rod Higgins
Section 3. City Officers Designated to Have Signature Authority at Qualified
Financial Depositories for Making Payments on Claims or Obligations of the City and Investing
Public Monies. Pursuant to SVMC 3.55.010, the following City Officers are given signing
authority on behalf of the City to make payments on claims or obligations of the City, to invest
its public monies with the Local Government Investment Pool, and make all appropriate transfers
related thereto:
John Hohman, City Manager
Chelsie Walls, Finance Director
Dan Domrese, Accounting Manager
Resolution 25-011 Declaring Banking Authority Page 1 of 2
DRAFT
Section 4.Repeal. Resolution 24-002ishereby repealed in its entirety.
Section 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption.
PASSED by the City Council of Spokane Valley, Washington this ___ day of June, 2025.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Pam Haley, Mayor
ATTEST:
Marci Patterson, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
___________________________________
Office of the City Attorney
Resolution 25-011 Declaring Banking Authority Page 2 of 2