Legislative Meeting - Regular Meeting

Okay, good afternoon everyone and welcome to our April 14th, 2026 two o'clock commissioners consent agenda meeting. Let the record reflect that we have four commissioners that are present. Commissioner French is um away on county business at this time. Uh so we have Commissioner Jordan, Commissioner Waldorf, Commissioner Karns, and myself, Commissioner Brooks. Um we do have a by leave item which is item going to be item number seven. So we will be taking that at the end today. Um we did receive public testimony on both items five written public testimony on item items 5A and 5B as well as those will be public hearings as well. So with that then I will have us all stand for the pledge. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay. So, I don't have anyone signed up for our open public forum. So, this is a time to talk about things that are not on our agenda. I have several that have um filled out forms for our public hearings that we'll have later. Um so, does anyone want to testify at our open public forum? Again, this is for items that are not on today's agenda. Second call. See no one in the audience and no one online. Third and final call. Seeing no one, I will close the open public forum and then I will look to my fellow commissioners. Madame Chair, I move to approve items three and four, including all sub items on today's consent agenda.

Second. Okay, I have a motion for items three and four and all sub items on today's agenda. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. I. I. Motion passes unanimously. That will then take us to items 5A, which is a public hearing in the matter of amending Spokane County Code Chapter 6.14 to add definitions and regulations for electronic bicycles and other devices. Um, county parks regulations. I think we have Doug Chase. Doug will give us a presentation before we turn it into a public hearing.

Yes, we have a presentation. and Julia will assist the two of us. Okay. Uh good afternoon, commissioners. This is in regard to the U park code updates that we're proposing um amendments to include provisions for electric bicycles, motorcycles, power wheelchairs, and bicycles. Next slide, please. So, uh why is this important? effectively um all those items I mentioned are currently prohibited um given the current language in the code. So all um all motorized devices fall under the definition of vehicles and we are interested in uh modifying the code to allow for certain um definitions such as for electric bicycles that don't presently exist and are not acknowledged by the code. Um back in 2018, the state uh passed some legislation that allowed individual jurisdictions to set their own guidelines. We started a public process in 2020. Um spent quite a bit of time that went on hold through the pandemic and um have been really pleased to bring this back. As we know um ebike youth and growth has consistently increased and we feel some of these are compatible. So with that I'm going to turn it over to Julia and I'll step back in later.

Thank you Doug. Next slide please. So, as we looked at updating the code, um we looked to neighboring jurisdictions and other agencies to see what has um been done so far. And um primarily state parks has um been the leader in legislation on eBike use in their um their park system. and we felt that the guidelines that they've set really match um the use of our natural areas and our park system. So um we looked at matching those for a variety of reasons. One um that allows users to have some consistency between um state parks and uh Spokane County parks as they move between those different lands. Um so as a guideline for state parks uh they have allowed class one ebikes and class three ebikes in their park system and um have uh not allowed class two and each class is defined by the state. Um so class one ebikes are pedal assist. Um so only assistance when the rider is pedaling up to 20 miles per hour. Class two is defined by um an ebike that can provide um motion if the a cyclist is not pedaling. So it has a throttle only option. And then class 3 ebikes um allow for uh pedal assist but at a higher speed at 28 miles per hour. Next slide. I think this one.

So the uh code amendment that we're suggesting today uh would include all three classes added to the definitions. Um we would also add the definition of e- motorcycles, add a definition for bicycles, which isn't currently in the code. Um and then wheelchairs as well. Um we look to this code amendment to emphasize uh using ebikes and pedal assist modes so that we can preserve and maintain you know the health of our trails and park systems. And then this amendment would also add um an enforcement component which would um have a fine of $200 and a civil infraction for um a violation of the first offense and then a misdemeanor uh on a following offense. Next slide. So, what this looks like for a regulation, what we're really trying to do is um encourage um you know, compliance with speeds on our trail systems and in our parks so that um we don't have damage to to them. And um we have um some park aids that the parks department utilizes during the summer heavy season that would go out and do some education. um with users in the field to um just share some of the updates to the code. We'd also partner with some of our um agencies like Evergreen Bike Alliance and WTA to educate uh user groups out on the trail system of the new regulations. And then we would look to include some new signage out in our park system as well. Next slide. And again, circling back to the public

input process, um we did enjoy um seeking input through our park advisory committee. They met here in December and um unanimously voted to convey support um for the policy and to proceed and bring it before you for consideration. um as presented. Um again is in doing our research, we contacted uh a large handful of shops in the area that sell electric bikes. They indicated that the majority of sales uh relate to class one. There certainly are exceptions to that, but again, the majority of sales relate to class one. And uh we've got a quote there from Evergreen that speaks to their support for class one and uh they understand and I think are uh supportive of of helping to have some level of consistency in the area. Um again looking at what the state does and so often our users don't know when they leave a county park and enter a city facility or state facility. So, um again, some support there and just we want to be uh aware of adaptive um ebiking that may be coming down the road. Next slide, please. And so, we're we're recommending um to consider approving implementation of these codes as before you. Uh and I might add just one or two other things to help. There was some recent reporting on our new regulations that you're considering here today that mention Camp Sakconi. Um that is a city of Spokane facility. So I just want to clarify for the record and and we received a lot of calls from people that were confused. Um great example of just how easy it is to confuse some of the different facilities. So these

regulations would not apply to Camp Sakonei. that would be up to the city of Spokane to determine um compatible uses and activities there. So, that's something I wanted to share. And then just in regard to some of the input we received um also within these guidelines, there is authority for the director to uh close a trail, if you will, a specific trail if needed. And um the the reason behind that is we will do maintenance. We will have um trees come down during a windstorm or an activity. We work with organizations that will uh again help uh create a trail or revive a trail uh that that may be worn. And occasionally we have trails show up that are not sanctioned and and don't aren't intended to be there. So, we will um use that authority to try to reclimate and and remove say a trail that that doesn't fit in or that that was not sanctioned to be there. So, that's been very very helpful from that standpoint. Um on occasion, we've uh benefited from from other grants and opportunities that have allowed more formal planning processes, but certainly try to use very good uh discretion and being mindful of that authority. So, and outside of that, I think we'll stop and be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you both. Um, any questions for Doug or Julie?

Hi. Hi, Doug. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, so we got some feedback from the community. I think in general people are just concerned that you know if we allow ebikes that there's clearly uh communicated rules about how to use them. So, what is the parks department plan to communicate and if needed enforce the the new code um signage information about trails that are allowed or not allowed on the website? Those might be some examples, but I just was wondering what what your thoughts were on rolling this out if we do approve it.

Perfect. I'm so glad you asked. I'm going to circulate a few handouts here if that's okay. And um what what we're circulating is uh examples of the existing signage that we currently have in some of our parks that refer to the uh I think of it as the the trail yielding priority, if you will. And those currently um help inform users. We we have these at several trail heads that uh bicycles yield to pedestrians and horses. Pedestrians yield to horses. Basically, everyone yields to horses if if we have horses going through. Um but aside from that, the the bicycles yield to horses and pedestrians. And again, by allowing type one and type three, if if that were to be the case, this would of course apply to them as well. And that's uh effectively what's taking place today. We have also created uh with uh grant funds, we've created an educational video that we'll be able to place on our website and circulate that will help inform of uh these changes. And uh again, there's anformational pamphlet that covers a lot of things. We've this is another item that was created through through grant funds that we're holding on to these should the changes go through. And it's another tool that we have. We mentioned that Julia mentioned

the park aids that go out in the field during the season. They bring these materials and they interact with the public and again their goal is to educate and most folks are pretty excited and they really enjoy um theformational materials. And then we have also been putting some thought into um signs that we passed around there that that we could use more immediate that could be in the form of stickers that we could use at trail heads to be like the no e motorcycles. This will that is definitely an area that we're having a lot of challenges with and seeing a lot of damage in the field. And again, these definitions um where right now everything is that we're discussing is prohibited. We feel several of these type one, type three are very compatible. And so it will allow us to have an enforcement tool. Um but really education and voluntary compliance is our number one tool. And so that's why um we're gearing up and would look for the opportunity to distribute the educational materials and to use um some immediate stickers out in in the field at various trail heads. And long-term, you may recall we've we've been working towards a goal of updating signage throughout our park system, but these would be immediate uh measures that we could impose to help implement this uh fast track, if you will. So, just one followup. Thanks. That would be I like the stickers and the signage. It would be excellent.

If someone were were to go to like Liberty Lake Park and would there be certain trails? I think there were some questions about people were reading the director discretion about closing trails. I think you were saying sometimes trails are closed because there's maintenance and there's down trees and things that you know we don't want people to get stuck on the trail. Are you going to have trail by trail at Liberty Lake Park with these are class one and these are class three or or is the whole park going to be you're allowed to use certain bikes with you know pedal assist? Yeah, it would essentially be the the whole park.

Okay. So it's not a trail by trail decision.

There's the flexibility of that and and again that's why I use the maintenance or the temporary closure as the best example. There's there's the possibility of that or Dishman Hills natural area is the one example I have. Um and the second example I have is bikes are not allowed on swim beaches. Um outside of that I can't provide an example to you where we we don't allow bicycles. And in fact, this um but yet we we never know what we'll run into. So there there could be a property someday where there may be a sensitive area or a specific need. We would generally just not include a trail through that area. So we try to build the trails and locate them in an area and design them in a way where they're multi-use. Um, but we do have examples where in certain areas it's so steep we've we've discouraged horseback riding from taking place because of the the severity of the steepness and and safety related. I think we we actually um have examples within the Micah Peak conservation area where there was a a very formal planning process that went on where I think there's a small loop of um mountain bike only trails within that that that came out of that planning process. So if anything, we have the opposite example going on where we I think we have a loop where it's it's bicycles only

and and so where would folks go to get information on that? We hope to post it at the trail head. So this is where with that signage we would and online. We have information online um that we'll try uh certainly make this available online, but the visibility out in the field is just essential to to help people understand what's allowed and not allowed. And so that that would really be our first line right there. When you're out using it, you're visiting that trail head. You there are folks that's the first thing I do when I go to visit any park, whether it's here in any city or country. It's it's fun to see how they line you out at the the front end. So in general, our trails are multimodal.

Yes. And it's likely that at most of our county parks, if you bring your bike, you'll be able to use it on at least one or two trails. Oh, certainly. Yeah. Yeah. Not non-motorized, but we do have areas for motorized.

Um and like the the electric motorcycles, we have our off-road vehicle park out um in the Liberty Lake area. And then we have the Airway Heights off-road vehicle park. And in fact, we learned I think it's um Airway X, they actually hold uh like clinics for folks that have surons and want to learn how to ride them out there. And so there are opportunities uh for use of these more powerful higher torque type um uh electric motorized vehicles. There are places for those to be used. Great. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Um, were was there any dialogue with the state parks as to how that policy's gone for them? Did they feel it's been successful?

Yes. In fact, I I recently interacted with Mr. Nolles who's I um I think still in charge of their trails and was sharing sharing our policy with him and and he was thrilled. Um he uh again I think just his opinion felt it would be really helpful to have that consistency. Um but it's again is we think that is very helpful but when we went out to the public that that's really the input we received it supported that. So we're also advocating for that not just because they have it and they've had I think relatively good luck with it. Um but that was the the overall input that we received. So that that's behind a recommendation. Um but again this is a starting point. This technology as we heard from some of the input is constantly changing and so we we may need to come back in a few years. uh if it does and as as new things are invented and as we receive input and feedback from the community, we certainly um could see coming back to you and if for some reason this doesn't seem to be a good fit, I think we'll hear and be happy to provide updates on it again should it go forward, should this become effective.

Well, thank you. I would just say, have you um are you looking be putting a flyer in at the bike stores just Oh, that's a good idea. So that way, yeah, you know, as people are purchasing bikes, they know where they can and can't use them within our system. Yeah, we we could certainly look at sharing some of these materials with bike stores or even creating like a one page to see if we can um encourage them to to put it up on the window. Um, REI has been a really good partner that way. places where folks go for information when they want to find Yeah. Where can I go? It's a great idea. No. Or they find a new bike and like where can I go? Yes. Where can I use this?

Okay. Thank you. I think I think a one pager would be great for that to just help, you know, keep it simple for them to see. Okay. Very good. We have someone very talented with that sort of thing. I see Julie. Julia is like already behind me. Yes. Shaking her head. So, um Okay. Well, thank you. Um, any other comments? Okay. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. This is a public uh hearing item, so I will open it to public testimony on item 5A as just presented. Yes, sir. Did you want to come and testify on this item?

5A. 5A. Yes. Yes, you're welcome to come up to the mic and you will have three minutes. We'll just need you to fill out a form at the end. You don't have to do it right now, but happy to do that.

My name is Phil Brenley and I live in the county and I don't understand why class two bikes with a throttle are being villainized as damaging to the trails. I particularly have a bike. It is a fat tire bike made for riding in trails, but it doesn't peel out. It doesn't damage anything. It doesn't even go uphill very well. It has only 650 watt motor and I'm 76 years old. I couldn't use these trails without any bike, without a throttle. So, when the problem is people hot rodding around the trails, that should be the issue that you need to solve with speed limits or rules and regulations. not remove me from the trail. That doesn't seem effective for me or anyone else that has some limitation as to how how well they can, you know, operate a bike. Even with pedal assist, my pedal assist mode, all I have to do is keep the pedal turning and it goes. I don't have to apply pressure. So, it's it's just not as maneuverable. It's not as controllable. The throttle is very controllable. It's not a e motorcycle. I think that the issue should be either control the attitude of the operator of the bike or maybe a limit an exemption for seniors or people with disabilities. And that's my only comment.

Thank you. um consider that when you're making your judgments because you're taking a high a very high percentage of people out of the loop here and and they're not the ones doing the damage. When I go for a ride, I'm going 12 miles an hour, you know, 15 miles an hour. I'm in between these guys that are jetting around with their regular bikes, peeling out and sliding and doing the things that damage the trails. My bike wouldn't even do that. So, please consider not limiting the bikes because of the throttle. The throttle is not the problem.

That's all. Did you want me to fill something up? Okay. Uh, so would anyone else like to testify on item number 5A? Do we have anyone online? Okay. Third and final call for anyone wishing to testify on item 5 A. Seeing no one, I'm going to close the public testimony and then um do we have further questions?

I do a question. Uh Doug, so the the gentleman that just testified says so he has a class two and he says his bike can't do the burnouts. Are there are there variations within the class two then? is I mean because I know when we were presented this two weeks ago it was that class two gives you the ability to kind of do a burnout and all that.

Are is it just only certain types of class two then have that ability or that level of power and then certain class two maybe don't have the power to do burnouts? I mean, do we I mean, is I'm just looking is it appropriate that we're banning all class two burnouts or should there just be maybe a subclass of the class two that need to be

like I say that this technology seems to be changing on the fly, but I I am aware and and our research showed that there are many class twos that have the high torque and the capability to burn out. Um, I I think there there may be um examples sold on Amazon that may not have a label technically, but may not also be pedal assist. And so whether they are a class two or or don't fall under that, it it's hard to say, but certainly it sounds like there's an example of one that may not have that torque. But I I think when uh many of them do many of them do and certainly that's what what the research um provided to us and that was uh similarly found at at the state level as well.

So and I don't know if any I yeah I'm I'm not a I don't own a class two. I just know what we learned in doing the research. Okay. And so it there could be an exception. Okay. I mean my my my concern is here um is that I mean our it it is it's the behavior we want to prevent. But my guess is there's a way you can appropriately use a class 2 that we would be fine with. If you're not burning out, if you're not, you know, leaving divots, you know, peeling out with it. I mean, I assume we would be fine with that. But I mean I I'm just I'm wondering if there's

a way to kind of find the middle ground. I mean because based on the testimony, it sounds like this gentleman uses his class too very appropriately. Like we wouldn't have a problem with it. And so I'm just wondering if I

just kind of what what is coming to mind based on the testimony. When I when I think of soft ground, which we run into, and we do have seasonal trail closures when the ground's really soft and muddy, again, we rely on on voluntary compliance, and that can be challenging. Sometimes it starts out frozen in the morning, by afternoon, it's mud. But something like that I think of as an example where a vehicle with that higher torque, even riding it responsibly, you may end up just spinning through that mud causing damage. And those were some of the examples that we that we heard about um behind the recommendation. But again, ultimately that's that that is up to you to decide and we're trying to share the best information that that we've been able to get our hands on. And um again, this tech technology is changing. So we we there there could be a new class created in a few years that doesn't exist today where we may need to come back and look at that. And so then I just want to just clarify too. So currently we do allow ebikes on trails. So we don't

currently all ebikes are prohibited. So type two are prohibited. Type one, type three. So we haven't been allowing any of them on.

They have not been allowed. We have not been enforcing we have not been enforcing it. They have been used synonymously with bicycles, but we've also um we're experiencing a lot of challenges with the certainly the e- motorcycles that are more similar to some of the the type two where we're and we're running into conflicts and I think we heard that with some of the the email testimony where there are there are conflicts with the the e- motorcycles and the ebikes. Um, and this would help address that.

Right. So, what we're trying to do is go from not allowing it at all to allowing some. Yes. And then trying to get the word out and encourage compliance and having tools for potential enforcement in a way that we have not as we've been working on this. So, yes, we're we're effectively going from not allowing anything to allowing these. and it'll provide an opportunity to um should we allow them and proactively try to see if that continues to be compatible. And I think in most cases that's been the feedback.

Okay. I kind of see it as like almost like a pilot project of trying to see where we're where we're at now, allowing for some of it and seeing where that takes us to then make further decisions in the future. Yes. Thank you. Yeah. Exactly. I know. Gamer, just a quick followup, Doug. So, are there I just did, you know, just did a quick little Google search and So, are there some class two bikes though that do have pedal assist?

It seems like there may be some. It says there's some modern class two. I'm not sure what that means, but I mean, what if we find that there is I guess to your point, um, Chair Brooks, we're putting something into place and we're trying to see how it goes for the community, but are there class two that also are pedal assist? You know, it's it's interesting that you mentioned that. Just again, I I happened to see some of the news reporting. They interviewed a a ebike salesman and a shop and they said, "Well, look, you can just unplug this right here and it goes from non-pedal assist to pedal assist."

Okay. Uh, so I learned that these are tricky and they're constantly, but we know for sure that class one and class three always have pedal assist, right? Generally speaking, if if there's pedal assist involved, it it falls in the one or the three. I think if some of them, if they have the option for no pedal assist, that may put it into the two bucket. Okay. But if somebody was out there and they were using pedal assist, they're likely not going to get a complaint on our trail. I think it would be unlikely. All right.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you. No other questions. I go look to my fellow commissioners. Madam Chair, uh I'm going to move that we approve public hearing item number 5A and the matter of amending Spokane County Code Chapter 6.14 to add definitions and regulations for electric bicycles and other devices. County parks regulations. Second. Okay. So, I have a motion in a second for item number 5A. Any further discussion?

I I was just going to say, so I I am going to support this today. Um I I know when we had the briefing a couple weeks ago, um it was mentioned that there is ongoing discussion around the sort of off-road scooters, electric scooters still. And so I would like to to make the request that as a part of that discussion that we do look into these sort of maybe additional variations within the class two classification to sort of see are there pedal assist ones that maybe could be allowed on these um on our trails safely. But um I I'm going to support it today because like Commissioner Commissioner Brooks pointed out uh as of today, no electric bikes are allowed. So I think we're we're all in agreement today. One and three are safe. I don't think there's I'm not seeing any type of disagreement on that, but I do believe we need to do a little bit more research into these class two bikes and see are is there a subcategory of these class 2 that could potentially be um be um compatible with our trails. Yeah, we can look at that. And to follow up on your e scooter comment, those technically continue to meet the definition of a vehicle, a motorized vehicle. So, they're technically prohibited. We have not, again, we've not dug into that to a point where we're comfortable recommending that they be allowed.

Yeah. You said there's ongoing discussion on those. Yes, we we are we're looking to learn more about those. We just we're not at a point where we're comfortable making any kind of a recommendation. Okay. But yeah, we can continue to certainly look into the the class two as you mentioned. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would uh agree that this is a good starting place today. Uh as it stands, no ebikes are allowed on the county trails and so this allows uh for more to be welcomed into the park system. Uh, I appreciate the gentleman's testimony and I I would ask as well that we continue to evaluate whether there could be exceptions uh made as we learn more about these technologies. But I'll be supporting it for the similar reasons as Commissioner Karns. Okay. So, seeing no other comments, I have a motion and a second. So, all in favor, please signify by saying I. I.

I. Motion passes unanimously. That is going to then take us to item 5B on today's agenda which is in the matter of authorizing a ballot measure for August 2026 for the West Plains Aquafer Protection Area and Ben Bravapo.

Uh thank you Madam Chair. Um uh good afternoon commissioners. Today I'm here to talk about the proposed West Plains aquifer protection area and have a some background information. Next slide. Um, so a county can establish an aquifer protection area anywhere in the county um under state law RCW 3636. Um, we've been talking with municipalities on the West Plains about creating a a protection area um since 2025, so about a year. Um, in this presentation I'll have a the next slide will be about the proposed boundary for the West Plains Aqua Protection area. A description of the fees that that mirror the same fees that have been in place on the Spokane Valley rather prairie aquifer protection area for 40 years and then recently renewed a year ago. Um, those fees are collected based upon two uses. So water use and and the assumption is all properties use water. Um, and then the second use is for on-site wastewater disposal. So if a property um also has a septic system, then they would be charged the second fee. Um they're based upon a single family residence, so equivalent residential unit. And uh and then no fee is is charged if a property is collected into a sanitary sewer. And then finally on fees, if a property is undeveloped, it's not using water, it's not disposing of waste water on site, then it's also it's not charged an aqua protection area fee. Um, and then finally, you have a description of the proposed activities that can be funded and then a potential budget. It's just an example of how the funds might be used. It's not decided yet how those funds would be used, but um there's some ideas of of how much they might cover. So, next slide, please. So, this is a uh the proposed aquifer protection is outlined in black. The with the dark line all the way around the outside and then the the small lines inside are voter precincts. Um so this is an area that we chose um voter

precincts that essentially match the west plains. Um it goes down to not chini is included to the south, medical lake on the west and then airway heights in the center. And those cities are included because their city councils have have elected to allow their residents to be included in the vote. Um other items there, Fairchild Air Force Base is not included. um we would be required to reach out as a federal um facility. We'd be required to reach out and we did not inquire to them to uh to join. And then the other piece that is there is you notice the Spokane International Airport which is kind of a cutout on the West Plains and and that's actually located within the city of Spokane. Um and the city of Spokane joined the Spokane Valley rather perfection area and so that's why that area is not included in this. Um, we estimate it's about 18,000 parcels across that area. Many of those are undeveloped, so they wouldn't be charged. So, we're estimating what the what the fees would collect. Um, if you go to the next slide, please. Um, this is the the rate structure, which is the the this the typical rate is a single family residence. And so, you see um at the top line a residential one house. This is actually the coding that we use um in the Spokane Valley Rather Prairie Aqua Protection area. And this is how we would charge if this were approved in the West Plains. And you have um the top line for single family residents is connected to sewer, they would be charged $15 and not connected, they would be charged $30. And this is an annual fee. It's independent of assessed value. It's it's a fee per use of the property. And then as you go down other options, you have a duplex is charged two times that because there's two residences. Um, ADUs, properties that have an ADU get charged an additional fee. Um, and then for non-houses were char they're charged um

by water meter size. Um, and so you can see the drop down and these are annual fees. The the the resolution describes them as monthly fees. Um, but they roll up to an annual fee and it's and it's assessed to the property or charged to the property through the property tax statement is how someone would see that and they see it as an annual and as an annual fee. Next slide. Um, these are the on the left side is allowable expenditures and these are defined in in RCW 3636 and and it's pretty flexible. there's um as long as it's related to water in the area, there's there's lots of opportunity for using that funds and that's one of the benefits of of the aqua protection area is it is flexible. Um it can be used for uh planning of groundwater management um storm water sanitary sewer drinking water infrastructure. It can be used to build things um related to water. Um and then it can also be used for monitoring um groundwater depth or groundwater quantity or also groundwater quality. Can be used for enforcement of water quality uh regulations and then it can be used for education and we're able to teach people about the water resources in their community both um youth education and adult education. Um from that 18,000 parcels we estimate about $400,000 in revenue per year. um not not sure that that's will be the number, but um that's about where we think it will come in. And so some ideas of how we could use that funds, one idea is to have a dedicated county staff that would be available to to work on activities in that and estimate that would be about $150,000 per year. Um there's monitoring. We have a lot of experience in monitoring in the Spokane Valley Rather perographer and we think we could do similar monitoring out there targeted. We can um look at um depth to water is water levels declining in the aquafers. POS is definitely a topic of a

lot of discussion, but this isn't necessarily have to be a POS monitoring project. And and uh and then education, it can be used for for for teaching teaching uh school groups and and we'd figure that out as as we went into that. And then finally, so if you take the difference there, you have um $160,000 which could be distributed amongst the cities. We distribute the money in the Spokane Valley rather than Perry aquifer protection area. We distribute that proportionally and how cities contribute the funds. And so we think we would do the same there. If there's remaining funds that aren't used in a regional basis, we could distribute them back to the cities. Um and then they would be able to use them as they wanted. They could do um planning for their their water in their community. They could build uh infrastructure that they might want. Um water conservation rebate programs have been discussed. Or alternatively, you could pull them all together and do a regional project in another fashion. There's the the term of this is a 20-year fee, and so it's a very predictable fee that is available for um the West Plains area to use for water related projects over that term. Um I think one more slide. This is a timeline of where we are today. So we're up on the top considering a ballot measure. um it needs the documentation to put it on the August 2026 ballot needs to be to the elections office by May of 2026. And so we're most of the way through that. We're having this public hearing on April 14th. Um there's discussion about uh selecting a for and against committee if we move forward with the the ballot measure. And then finally, this is as an update is that all three cities there have agreed to participate in this. Um this was the medical lake decided just just recently April 7th our earlier slide that came out had we weren't certain um but we've since updated those slides and so the three cities we've discussed would participate. So it's the three cities plus the portions of

unincorporated Spokane County that would participate in this and available for any questions. Okay, any questions? Commissioner Waldra. Thanks Ben for all your work on this and working with all the cities and good to see some folks here I'm sure here to testify on this. Uh so in the ballot language right now do we keep it pretty broad how the funds could be expended? Do we just have a list of education monitoring um or is it more specific?

Uh it is it is broad. It it's uh based upon what's allowed in 3 in RCW 3636. So we kind of leave all of them available for use on there. So then what would be the plan? How would you see if this were to get on the ballot and approved by voters um making decisions about prioritizing the funds for different activities? Would that be in a collaborative um approach working with the different uh cities to get input on the best use of the funds.

Yeah, for sure. We would um first figure out that we're we would receive the funds for next year and then as part of the budget budgeting process as we'd set ourselves up to um figure out what we're going to do with it and and I think we really um have a lot of interest in monitoring out there. There is not a lot of information that's being collected and not necessarily related to POS. It may be POS, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that. Um, and so I think our first step would be to to focus on monitoring, start collecting information um that can be adapted over that 20-year term. Um, and then yes, talk to the community. What what do the cities have needs for? The differing the different cities have different water system issues that we could we can talk with them about what would be helpful to them. I think the PAS piece will continue to be a big question. There'll be interest in how do that these funds would be used to support uh PAS monitoring. It's probably not enough funds to do significant remediation but um it could be used for monitoring in maybe a short term in maybe the initial part of this and then additionally is some planning. So I think we would have a period of time where we are we're planning and trying to figure out what what those activities are.

Yeah. Yes. Collaboratively. Thank you. Uh has the it's great to see the cities have supported inclusion in the vote. So thanks for the dialogue there with city councils. Um has this idea come up in the PAS task force setting and has there been input provided there if you've been at those meetings?

I have been at those and and I don't think that that this specifically has been talked about. I may be I may be misremembering but no but it but it is a it is a dedicated funding source. One of the questions we have from the community members is is why don't county water resources staff spend time uh working on water west plains water resource issues and and and often the answer is is that we don't have dedicated funding. We spend a lot of time on what we do in the Spokane Valley Rather Perry because we have dedicated funding and so that's a piece of that would be available to support that.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, this is a public hearing item. So, I will open up for public hearing. I do have several people that have signed up to testify. So, we will start with Hank Baker. He is Well, good afternoon, Madam Chair and commissioners. I appreciate the opportunity to speak today. Uh Ben stole a lot of my thunder, so I'm not going to reiterate what he just said. So, it's kind of like everything he said, but what I would like to do is add a couple other items. maybe um establishing an APA would also provide local funds uh you know to provide money if we're seeking a state or some federal grant which requires a match. I think that's important to mention and also it provides a potential to fund a water conservation program. conservation is the most effective way to enhance your water infrastructure for growth and aqua aquafer health. Um, and again, Ben did a great job of covering of the I crossed out all my other items here, but but I would like to invite all of you today to join us, all the cities that approved this um by resolution. And I I want to put this on the on the ballot this year. Let the voters, you know, decide. Some are going to say, "Oh god, it looks like another tax. I I'm not interested." But, you know, basically, if you're connected to city sewer and you're average homeowner, for for less than a pack of gum, you know, the cost of it, you can

protect your aquafer. And I I I can't see any downside to this. So, um, please I I you know, I really, uh, hope you join us and support that and put it on the ballot and let the voters decide whether or not they want to do that. So, thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Thank you. So, next I have John Hancock. I like the title aquifer protection. We need it. But the failure of aquaer protection in the past is not the fault of the residents. It's the fault of the government. And I don't know yet enough about the power of this proposal to actually protect the aquifer. So I'm undecided here about this and I have a bunch of questions if I may. Uh starting with the trouble. Are septic tanks a problem here like in the valley? What does my property tax current payment for storm water management provide on my rural street? Does Fairchild pay county for its share of storm water management? Has the county ever been involved in storm water runoff in no-name ditch? Is my private home water right still guaranteed within this new APA? Will this project authorize wellwater usage monitoring? Does this plan help or hurt Mr. French's water district establishment. What county legal actions underway will be aided or harmed by this initiative? And then in the category of jurisdiction, I'd like to know why Spokane City and Fairchild aren't part of this West Plains aquifer protection. Those are the big players here to be xed out of the map. Doesn't make sense in a in a water um category. Is the county a party to Fairchild's federal facilities district? federal facilities agreement. Has the county represented district five people in groundwater protections at Fairchild in regarding funds distribution for the unincorporated areas like my neighborhood? Who decides?

Is there any citizen input or oversight in the unincorporated areas? What percent will be spent on existing obligations of county staff? I think Ben Ben kind of answered that question on his slide. How and to whom will the county report the outcomes of aquafer protection? Not not just the funds in this project, but aer protection uh in general. I'm concerned about the exclusion from sea which I don't understand very well. Does this APA limit counties commercial development plans in any protective way? Has there been sea general review of undeveloped land owned by the airport? And speaking of undeveloped land, I understand there's no assessment on those speculators who to me have just as much to gain from a clean aquifer as the people who actually have developed properties. So I think it's wrong to have that dicho dichotomy here in this definition. Does S3R3 use Washington Form 17 or its equivalent for disclosure of PAS risk in commercial real estate transfers? And if this um funding will help a match for bigger projects, what are those topics exactly? So, I' I'd like to be able to support this because it's a good idea, but there hasn't been enough discussion so that we all understand what we're getting in for here. Thank you.

Thank you.

So Julian Mchugh is next. Good afternoon. Julia McHugh Palisad's neighborhood, West Plains, living turns out on a contaminated well for the last 25 and a half years. So I am here very much in favor of an aquifer protection area ballot issue and the full support of the county commission in supporting this ballot issue. I have actually been in front of this body since November of 23. This is my 16th appearance in front of you all. And in fact, I have provided you, thanks to West Plains Water Coalition, I've provided you Fairchild's PAS rates, uh, the ecology EPA rates. I've just today given you the EWU study, uh, parts per trillion. On the back side is a very interesting uh, graphic on what the West Plains aer looks like in profile. And this is simply another one that better illustrates the paleo channels which are much more transmissive than the rest of the west plains with the fractured basult. Also, I'd like to inform you that at this week's uh last week's RAB, Fairchild's resource advisory board uh they announced that they are increasing their study boundary. They're expanding their study boundary to the east to include some of the Airway Heights Paleo Channel and to the north all the way to the Spokane River. That tells us and I hope we'll tell you that we are finding more PAS than was known prior. Uh and then I'd like to address the the way in which this ballot issue has been presented for

the uh since 2023 the twice in 23, seven times in 24 and six times in 25. I asked you to please include the West Plains in the Spokane Valley Ratham Prairie Oxford ballot issue. Why? Because well in fact you did. You've included the city and county owned property which is the Spokane airport. That is the West Plains aquifer, but that was included in the August ballot last 2025. Was approved by 72% which is almost unheard of in Spokane. But the problem here is that on the south, especially the south and east of the airport, there are already identified by the city and county and S3R3 solutions in their development plans identified two major census tracks that are poverty labeled povertystricken. Basically, a good deal of the West Plains is povertystricken. So, you have left us by including only the airport at the SVRP ballot approved. uh you have left us with a very untenable position with a ballot issue with people who are already strapped already identified as povertystricken. So in that way uh it's on you because you excluded us from last August August ballot. We do have many ideas about how to use the funds that could come from the West Plains Oxford Protection Area, including uh closure of unlined and abandoned wells and many other things which I'll be happy to discuss with you again at a future date. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, I have Larry Wilcox. Greetings. My name is Larry Wilcox. I'm a rural landowner and live within the proposed protection area. I apologize if some of my comments don't reflect the most recent information because I just found out about it to date. Um, after reading this proposal, I see that Fairchild Spokane International Airport, potentially any city within this area could be exempt and I that is an error and I apologize for that. My initial response is that this will result in a very large bureaucracy with inspectors, regulators, etc. This sounds very intrusive to the residents of a very large area and conservation is not being rewarded as you will have to pay the same fees as someone using very large amounts of water. I respond much better to a carrot than a stick. Since this goal seems to be to limit groundwater and wastewater volumes, I think that providing incentives and rebates is a better option. Such incentives could be made for composting toilet systems with several area disposal sites. system designs could be actively promoted for graywater utilization for groundwater conservation. There could be incentives for rainwater collection and um sand filter systems and other new and existing alternatives

as well as promoting more efficient landscape designs. Some of these designs would probably be more effective at the new construction stage, but it could be rebated or cost shared at the remodeling or purchase stage. If the county decides to promote this plan, I think that it will have the unintended consequence of people moving away, which leads to fire, health, safety, and transportation demands on more distant rural areas, which are already being stretched thin, as well as the issues of farmland preservation. In conclusion, this proposed ballot seems rushed to me. It seems more like a reaction to very legitimate pollution concerns, yet something that city water and wastewater infrastructures could lead the way in conservation and innovation. So, I urge the commissioners to slow this perceived rush to a ballot vote. Thank you. Thank you. And next I have Alexandra BGS.

Thank you for hearing us. Um I did write I don't know if you got my um Yes, we got your email.

You did get it. So I'll be brief. I just want to make sure it's recorded. I do want aquafer protection, but I also want a lot of what John Hancock was stating, we need to have a little bit more information as to how the funds will be taken care of. And I did say in the bottom of my comments, I urge the commission to revise the proposal to ensure that existing West Plains residents are exempt from the AP fees, especially since they are impacted by POS contamination. So those existing people who are out there have already beared the burden of what they have to do to make sure they have clean water. they're protecting their drinking water now with all kinds of fees that they have to pay upright. So, I think that's one of the parts that I feel if you can exempt it for a certain amount of time, it just needs some revisions there. Spokane International Airport and Fairchild are the ones who uh should be directly funding any groundwater protection and remediation. So, if there's going to be something in this that has to do with aquafer protection, then they need to be in in here talking to us and helping with what's going to happen here on how this is going to be proposed. And any AP funding mechanism prioritize polluters pay principles, not homeowners paying. So the county needs to look at deserving us deserving clean water and the fairness should come from the people who contaminate not necessarily should it be to the people who have already done what they can to live there. So that's just my statement there. So and since you all got my letter I appreciate the time.

Thank you. Okay. So that is the of the people I do have signed up to testify. So, I will ask if there's anyone else. Yes, ma'am. If you want to come down and testify, you're welcome to. Yes, Mary Benham, West Plains resident. I agree with everything that's already been said, but I'm uh very concerned that there's no mention of collaboration with the Department of Ecology. Ecology is already testing and working with homeowners to mitigate the PAS contamination. I mean, we essentially are living with a crisis and I'm concerned about another layer of uh administration that sounds good and looks good on paper, but there what is going to be accomplished? And it's hard for me to vote for something without more information and especially the critical piece of close collaboration with the Department of Ecology. Thank you.

Thank you. And would you be able to fill out one of our forms? Thank you. Okay. Second call for anyone else in the audience or online that would like to testify on item number 5B.

Hi, my name is Gail O'Neal and I'm also a rural resident in the West Plains area with a contaminated But I'm not here about the PAS issue. I'm here to discuss or hopefully it's there's clarity on what an APA is. And in my interpretation, it's to critic to to to protect the critical aquifer that's supplying water to the residents. So I'm not so concerned about the fees. I am concerned about making sure that there's a little bit more substance to how that money might be used with that funding. Um, septic uh waste that's already contaminated with PAS, there's going to be a need for that to be cleaned up. Um, and I think that the funds could be identified for more of that kind of an issue. Um, I also believe that um some of the dirty industry out there that have been pushed into the West Plains are continuing to contaminate that water and there's no oversight. Um, they're not having water tested. uh we don't know how much water they're using and I have several neighbors that are not on our well system but that are in the uh they're not quite as deep as our wells but they've noticed in the last year a lack of water pressure and we have a number of gravel pits on um Hayford Road and we're we live near that area uh and we are starting to believe that their use of water is affecting the water pressure in those higher um or or higher level wells. So those are the concerns that I have and I think that it really needs to be defined as a critical protection. This is something that's going to

protect our water in the future. I don't think at this point um the PAFS even though they're a huge issue and we have them in our well um it this is not the purpose. is to help prevent any more contamination. And that's all I have to say. Thanks. Thank you. Okay. So, anyone else that would like to testify? This is final call for anyone else in the audience or anyone else online. Okay. I'm not seeing anyone else. So, I'm going to close the public testimony. And is there any other comments from the board?

Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. I just had a question for Ben. I know um you talked a lot about monitoring and what are the things that you monitor for on the Spokane Valley Rather Prairie aquifer. You also look at I mean I know one of the issues that I've heard of concern I think it's been brought up a couple times today is that the aquifer on the west plains has been dropping over time. It's replenished at a different rate than the Spokane Valley uh rather prairie. So, I mean, the purpose of these funds is to get I mean, I like the way that you framed it of getting more information about both water quality, but also water quantity on the West Plains so that we know in the future, you know, there'll be access to to clean drinking water. Um, so I just is is this is there a lot of information about the aquifer on the West Plains available? Will this give us more information so we can make better choices?

Yes. So there's there is not as much information on the West Plains aquifer as there is on the Spokane Valley Rather Prairie aquifer. The Spokane County led watershed planning watershed planning program which was funded by the state department of ecology from around 2000 till about 20 16 or so. Um, and there was a a lot of focus on the West Plains, gathering information, gathering geologic information. Some of that that we that um we've seen from Julia, some of that information was gathered by uh Spokane County Water Resources under that funding program and looked at how many wells there are, water quality, compiling water quality information from those. Um, but there isn't that focus right now. And so, yes, those are the kind of things we would measure. Depth, just how deep the water is below the ground surface. call that depth to water and there isn't a long-term record across the West Plains. So water levels may be declining, they may be declining seasonally, maybe they drop and then come back up with recharge, but we don't have that information and aren't collecting that information to kind of answer those questions. Are certain users impacting other other users? um they may be and there is there is some monitoring but but not a lot of um not a widespread or ongoing long term. One of the benefits we've seen in the Spokane Valley aquifer is long-term data sets, gathering this information for 20 years and seeing what those water level trends are. Um things like uh nitrate contamination from septic systems. some of the early work that that the county did in the early 2000s um found areas where there is nitrate contamination of wells likely due to on-site wastewater disposal. And so if that was was needed, we we would continue. So um continue monitoring and uh look into that further things monitoring things like nitrates. There's concern about iron um in some of the wells out there so we could gather that

information across the across the West Plains. So with the with the Spokane Valley Rapture Prairie aquifer, is the monitoring done at along the river? Generally,

um it is because the river falls the aquifer and so um we we monitor different locations in the the valley aquifer. And that's what we would plan to do on the West Plains. And there's places where surface where groundwater comes out into and becomes surface water. And those could be places that we could monitor. Um, Garden Springs, for example, is this place where where water goes from groundwater and then becomes surface water and then flows it makes its way down to either Hangman Creek um or Lock Creek or the Spokane River. And and so we could we could gather information about those.

That was going to be my followup is how do you envision monitoring at this preliminary stage being different on the West Plains than it is in the other aquifer? Um, we had some proposals and we've talked with the with the cities as we went through those things like um kind of a strategic surface water sampling and then from those springs that they're coming out and then um different different wells across the West Pines. We haven't looked in great deal on exactly where those would be, but we we suspect they're available um or or we know they're available. The county has monitored um wells on the West Pines and we could we could continue to monitor those. um things like recharge rate, how is the water getting back in there? That's u there's been work at Eastern Washington University looking at that and trying to understand that so that we can see what kind of look forward and and what groundwater is going to do into the future and that will help us gather information to support that. So, um, it was brought up that funding could match or help get other funding. Has that has that happened with the Spokane Valley Rather periquifer? Have we ever used the aquafer protection area funds to leverage other university research or state ecology funds or other funds? Um we have we use a uh Spokane Valley aqua protection area funds to fund studies. So for example, right now um we we're contributing we're we're actually purchasing equipment to monitor groundwater this summer in response to um the where the Spokane River went to dry between Barker Road and Sullivan Road. was an unusual case and so there's our area partners um are doing a study to try to understand why that happened last year and if it was an unusual case and so they came to us and said hey can you can you help monitor a piece of this and then all those data can go together

and so we've agreed to do that so that's an example of where we could do monitoring um to support a larger study um we've worked with uh talked with Eastern Washington University about research out there haven't haven't done that work but um definitely could do that on infrastructure projects. Some infrastructure projects require match and this this would be eligible. We would fund a portion of an infrastructure project with APA funds that would then also be matched for larger external funds. I suspect we've used it as match on the Spokane Valley rather prair protection area, but I don't know specific examples of that.

Just one more followup. uh with all the work that's happening with the PAS studies and trying to protect people's uh drinking water and do filtration, how do you see um the work of ecology? There was a question about you know ecology we're working with ecology on a variety of of projects and do you see this as complimementaryary and how would you coordinate with ecology's work and that's been going on with PAS contamination? Yeah, it is complimentary. There's um we have done work a lot of that watershed planning work that was done in the early 2000s was was in parallel with the ecology. We were monitoring wells ecology was monitoring wells and then putting those data together. Um and I I we can definitely do that. Um develop those studies looking at where recharge areas are coming in or where you know things like targeted studies like is specific water use on the West Plains impacting other water users. That's that can be done and and and work with ecology if there's a need to look at water rights and to look at how how water is being used. Um, I don't have any specific examples of how that could be done right now, but but definitely we would partner with ecology. We talked with ecology on the PAS and we talked about with them on water resources in the little Spokane River. We talked with them and so this would just be another opportunity to do that. the uh the state law allows for a broad list of possible uses as you talked about uh and some of the questions were about the specific plans to use the funds. So, can you just speak to kind of I know that that's a it was in part a commissioner conversation, but can you speak to how you would envision that

going in terms of if it was a successful ballot measure, um recommending certain uses for the funds, being in dialogue with the cities that are under or would be under the APA, getting community input from folks in the West Plains who are dealing with uh difficult situation with drinking water. So, how do you recommend or envision that planning process going

uh fast? I think we would if it were to come around, we would we would if it were to pass in August, we would know that and then the we would be working to figure out the mechanism to to collect the funds through the treasur's office and then um and and actually I would take back FA it wouldn't necessarily need to be fast. we would have an opportunity to take uh very deliberate we can take the time to look into what is needed. I would think we would want to very quickly start monitoring just to create that missed months or are unfortunate for monitoring. You want to have a really continuous data set and so to find that for first step would be to find what monitoring wanted to do and then do a bit of planning and and talk with the cities of what's needed and look at how this might complement uh PAS work. There is PAS work that's being required by the airport as as you're familiar with and Fairchild is doing work and trying to understand how that works but but not get in the not replace that. I think there's water resources issues that we can work um that need attention outside of PAS and so we can work on what's needed for water qu water quality monitoring in that area. We do have the idea of a a rebate program of working with cities if they have a if they have interest in using these funds to provide rebates for reduced water use and and I mean in theory we could provide the uh rebates for people on private wells. I mean that that would be another way to to promote water conservation but but first would be to start monitoring and then to do planning to to figure out what we have. Um Ben, you you've touched on um kind of how the dollars can be used to leverage grants. You've talked about monitoring. You've talked about the septics. Um can you uh you using the Spokane Valley Rather Prairie aquifer? Can you touch on

how some of the dollars there are used for education and enforcement? Just to give folks kind of an idea using another APA that is already established and operating, how those dollars are used in th in those manners. Yes. So um a big focus of our program in in with Spoken County water resources is education about the Spokane Valley RAM prair. So we work with the school districts east valley, central valley, west valley and me and then looking to add in uh city of uh Spokane schools as they've joined with the APA. And so we have educators that go out and teach students um at their at their school site. We also have them come to um parks. We do work at Bear Lake County Park. We do work at um Salty's Flats and have the students come visit there and learn about the kind of the water cycle, how humans fit in, how we use water, and how we make it dirty and how we make it clean and kind of that whole um engineered cycle of of water use. And so we have ideas of how that would work out on that on the West Plains. the there's a few school districts and we could set up programs where we would go to them or we could have them meet us uh in a in a strategic place. We could have them come to our facilities where where we are now. Um we could advertise directly to them. We could also createformational um uh brochures, things like the Spokane Valley rather prairie aquifer atlas. we could create anformational atlas or information about um the West Plains as Julie McHugh shared the it's a it's a very complicated geology and she suggested an aquafer atlas out there might be helpful so people understand that underneath what they do on the surface can impact what's under their feet and the water that may be coming to their house and so that's a big part of what we talk with in the valley and it's the same thing um just less focused

attention up on the west plains And then um I know it was a it was a part of you touched on it briefly, but can you again tell us about Fairchild Air Force Base? If can a voterapproved measure apply a fee to a federal military installation?

No. Unless they tell us that it can and we didn't ask them. So that that is why they are not in there because we cannot apply a a fee to a federal military installation. Okay? And the reason I know we touched on this in previous meetings when we've discussed APA, the reason why the airport is not in there is because the entirety of the city of Spokane is in the other APA. Correct. Correct. Correct. Okay. And they they could be in both. They we could have that that could be the one overlapping section, but we didn't we didn't include that as as the option.

Looking at the airport, how many parcels are in how much money would that even bring if they were in this APA? That's a great question. I don't know. Okay. It would be based upon water meter size and they probably have a lot of water meters. Um but I I can't even guess. Okay. All right. Okay. Um and then if this passes, um funds people would not be charged until next year till 27. Correct. They would have it would be on their their property tax that would come out and then would be for the year 2027.

Correct. And then uh just it sunsets in 20 years. Correct. Okay. Okay. And then it expires automatically expires unless it is unless it is renewed. Renewed. So So in 20 years it'll have to be up for a ballot measure again if it passes this time to be able to be renewed. Correct. Okay. Just wanted and the fees are are flat the entire uh 20 years 20 year period. Correct.

Just wanted to clarify all that. So okay. Um thank you. I don't see any other questions for you. So I will look to my fellow commissioners. Madam Chair, I move to approve public hearing item number 5B in the matter of authorizing a ballot measure for the August 2026 for the West Plains Aquafer Protection Area. Second. A motion and a second for item number 5B. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say I. I. I.

I. Motion passes unanimously. Um, we do have one B leave it. Um, and so that is item number seven, which is a resolution in the matter of rescending the October 21st, 2025 notice terminating cooperative agreement number AA-6-11772 between Spokane County and the Washington State Department of Transportation known as WASHDOT regarding the operation and maintenance of Gateway Park affects resolution number 25-0536. So, Doug, do you want to give us a quick update on that?

Okay. Um, as we uh discussed on um Monday, this would allow the u the Gateway Park to continue to operate as it does today, which also includes the Patricia Simmonet dog park. And we would look to work with the Department of Transportation over the next year to look at a uh more of a long range um options out there for lease. We may look at other options um as the board may ask us to look at. But by taking this approach, we will um continue to maintain the site and it allows for more time to visit with them on that bigger picture. they've indicated there may be other players that are uh maybe have an interest in the site such as STA and um by taking this action it would uh effectively cancel and resin that termination and so we would move forward with a focus on that bigger picture and would need to come back at a later date to terminate should we decide.

Okay. Thank you. I know we uh this this happens to be in my district so I'll speak to it first. Normally I don't but with it being in my district um I appreciate the fact of us coming back and relooking at it. I mean as we made bud budget decisions uh during our budget situation last year trying to get to a balanced budget. We made decisions and sometimes we don't understand all the unintended consequences of those decisions. So, um, when this park was going to be shut down, the citizens definitely were out and let us know. And so, we we wanted to, you know, talk to you more about it and figure out um,

other ways that we could look at it. And so, what we're doing right now is this letter will help us will have us resend the termination agreement that we had sent to the Department of Transportation. Um, correct me if I'm wrong. And then um our our uh agreement ends in a year anyway. Correct.

No, I think the the agreement continues forward. So basically we would we would resend the termination. We're right back in it. We would operate it as we always have under the terms all of the terms that are in the agreement today. And given the changes in the federal guidelines and rules, they felt this was the most um effective way the DOT. So when they look at a new lease, there's all different guidelines that would need to be looked at. And so understanding the specific um the different players in those different roles can really have an effect in what that future lease might look like. So this way we're working with a known agreement and um able to operate that while discussing that bigger picture with them and looking at other options. So effectively it it just um cancels the termination. We continue to operate with the agreement as it sits today and all of the terms that are in place today.

Very good. And gives us time to to think about it and look at correct think of other options. And they are com committed to working with us to look at that those long-term options. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other Okay. So, uh, since this is a BIE item, um, I'm going to ask for a motion in a second first before I open up for any public comment. Madam Chair, I move to approve by resolution number seven in the matter of rescending the October 21st, 2025 notice terminating cooperative agreement number AA-6-11772 between Spokane County and the Washington State Department of Transportation regarding the operation and maintenance of Gateway Park, which affects resolution number 25-0536. Second.

Okay, I have a motion and a second. I am going to open up for public testimony. Um, since it's a by leave item, we have to open up for any public comment. So, if anyone would like to testify on this item, you can come forward now or anyone online. See no one in the audience and no one online. Second call for anyone wanting to testify on item number seven. Third and final call for anyone wishing to testify on item number seven. Seeing no one in the audience and no one online, I'm going to close the public testimony on item number seven. And I do just want to state that um I want to appreciate my assistant Brenda Nelson because she took a lot of calls. She was uh out there. She's talked to everybody. She really worked hard on this. And I want to thank Scraps, Ronnie at Scraps, our direct new director for all his work um on this project as well um because we certainly got a lot lot of comments all of us. So um I just want to thank and Doug, you know, for your hard work on it as well. So thank you all um for you know helping us find a solution for the moment and hopefully we'll find a long-term one coming going forward.

Mr. Waldo,

thank you. I also want to thank Brenda and for helping our assistance also get back to folks. So, I just just for the I I definitely support us rescending um the termination of the agreement. Uh just for a little background if folks didn't quite understand, the Gateway Park has a mixture of user users and land owners. And so while the county owns land, we don't own the dog park land. And that's where this got a little tricky. Um the WA washd dot owns that land. And so we definitely want to keep having access to key points along the river there. And for for runners, walkers, um, dog owners, I think the goal was to reduce cost to the county of maintaining the state's property because we have so many properties that we want to maintain for for our parks here in Spokane County. So, the goal will be how can we keep a variety of uses, work with our partners, but reduce the cost of maintaining the state's property. So, hopefully we can get to a good a good outcome. But for now, we will keep working with the state on that and we'll keep that dog park open for users and find a way to to keep access points uh there and hopefully the state can work with us on a way to maintain their property, their portion of the property and reduce that cost to the county. So, thank you.

Okay, so we have a motion and second. We've taken care of our public testimony. Um I'll call for the vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. I. I. Motion passes unanimously. That takes us to the end of our printed agenda. Um Mr. Pson, do you have any more items?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Two executive session items today. They're both pending and potential litigation. No action is anticipated at the end of either one. The first one 10 minutes. Matt Folsam, Devin Curt, and Kyle Tuig present. The second one pending and potential litigation. Matt Folsome, Devon Curta, Wes Sitkow, and Heather Arnold. No action.

Okay. So, we will go into executive session for again how long? 20 minutes total. Thank you for those two items just stated. Um, so with that, uh, we are then, uh, we will adjourn for the day after that. Next week we do have our gsi fly in so we will not be here. Um so we'll be back in DC and we'll see everybody back in two weeks. Thank you.