Spokane Valley council approves automated speed cameras, reserves $2 million for ice facility and advances major road, public‑safety and planning items

The Spokane Valley City Council on Dec. 16 voted through a package of public‑safety, budget and planning actions that included creating an automated traffic‑safety camera program, allocating lodging‑tax funds tied to a proposed Innovia ice facility, and advancing a redesigned interchange for Sullivan Road and SR‑290.

The meeting, held in regular session, featured extended public comment on the automated camera ordinance and the lodging‑tax decisions. Council approved Ordinance 25‑018 to adopt chapter 9.6 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code establishing a city automated traffic‑safety camera program focused on school zones and authorized adding one full‑time equivalent position to the 2026 budget to administer the effort. Staff said the city would issue a request for proposals, ask vendors to provide traffic studies for candidate locations and aim to have equipment installed before the next school year.

Gloria Mance, city staff, told council the cameras are meant to “relieve some of the stress on the police force” and to reduce speeds in school zones. Supporters in public comment framed the program as a child‑safety measure: Enrique Rojas said drivers were doing “40, 45 down the hill when the lights are flashing” at nearby schools and urged the council to act to protect students.

Opponents warned of privacy and records concerns. Council member Padden and Council member Wick both said they worried about photographs and other data becoming public records and noted recent legal developments around surveillance systems. Ben Lund, a resident who said he received a camera citation elsewhere, said the ticket he paid was $300 and urged council to review revenue assumptions and enforcement settings, noting that he still slows down in camera zones but questioned whether the fines were set at the right level.

After more than an hour of exchange among staff, council and members of the public, council voted to pass the ordinance.

Votes at a glance - Ordinance 25‑018 (automated traffic‑safety camera program): motion to adopt passed (council voice vote; motion recorded as passed). Staff will proceed with an RFP and recommended sites for school‑zone enforcement; an additional FTE is authorized for the 2026 budget to administer the program. - Ordinance (tower‑height amendments for first‑responder communications): adopted after waiving rules; staff said the measure eliminates an earlier emergency ordinance sunset and allows taller towers for SHREC’s relocated facility. - Resolution designating official newspaper of record: Council adopted a resolution designating the Spokesman Review as the city’s official legal newspaper (vote reported 5–2). Local publisher Roger Harnack of the Valley News Herald objected to not being asked for a formal proposal and warned of impacts to local journalism. - Lodging‑tax motions (three separate motions): Council approved a set of allocations for 2026 and future years, including Motion 2 amending the LTAC recommendation to condition up to $2,000,000 of capital lodging‑tax funds on execution of a ground lease or similar agreement with Innovia and on LTAC recommended operational supports. Council approved all three lodging‑tax motions after debate. - Homelessness five‑year plan (continuum of care plan adoption): adopted; staff said the plan is required to continue administering recording‑fee dollars for local homeless and housing programs and will allow the city to prioritize local spending within state/federal requirements. - Canine patrol conversion: Council approved converting an existing patrol position to a canine position; staff said a private donation would cover one‑time canine acquisition costs and the recurring costs would be partially offset by a federal COPS grant. - Sullivan/Trent interchange: Council approved advancing the revised “jug‑handle” alternative and supplementing the consultant agreement; staff cited lower bridge area, reduced construction duration, and fewer rail/freight impacts compared with the previously favored diamond/“peanut” alternative.

Why it matters The automated‑camera ordinance is the most consequential public‑safety change the council approved this year: staff and some council members emphasized immediate reductions in speeds where cameras are visible, and the program changes how school‑zone enforcement may be delivered without a dedicated on‑site officer. The lodging‑tax allocations tie city funds to a high‑visibility private project (the proposed Innovia ice facility) and create multi‑year operational commitments that council members said require careful monitoring. The comprehensive plan update discussion that followed the votes signals forthcoming policy choices on housing density and state compliance that may require zoning changes next year.

Other actions and next steps Council adopted a tower‑height amendment to allow SHREC improved first‑responder communications, approved the signal‑cabinet art‑wrap partnership with Spokane Arts (grant‑funded), and received presentations on the city’s comprehensive‑plan periodic update and draft land‑use scenarios. Planning staff said additional public outreach and technical analysis on housing capacity will continue in early 2026.

Council indicated it will return to monitor the camera program’s effectiveness after implementation and authorized staff to continue contract and lease negotiations tied to the lodging‑tax commitments. Several council members asked for periodic reports on enforcement outcomes, privacy safeguards and the impacts of the new programs on city budgets and contracts.

Who said what (select quotes) “Relieve some of the stress on the police force” — Gloria Mance, staff, on reasons to use automated cameras. “I got one of those tickets, and it was $300” — Ben Lund, Spokane Valley resident and business owner, sharing his experience with automated enforcement in another jurisdiction. “We were never asked for a proposal” — Roger Harnack, publisher, objecting to the newspaper‑of‑record selection process. “We will bring this forward to you and you’ll be executing those or authorizing us to execute those contracts” — a city staff member describing vendor and contract steps for the camera program.

What the council asked staff to do next - Proceed with an RFP for camera vendors and return to council with recommended sites and vendor proposals; schedule a one‑year follow‑up to evaluate effectiveness. - Return regular reports on lodging‑tax expenditures tied to Innovia and on any ground‑lease negotiations. - Continue public outreach and provide more detailed land‑use capacity analysis for the comprehensive‑plan update, with targeted community engagement early in 2026.

Missing or limited details - The official vote tallies for some motions were recorded as voice votes without named roll‑call tallies in the meeting transcript; the newspaper designation vote was recorded as 5–2. - Specific vendor names, final contract terms, and an executed Innovia lease were not part of the meeting record and will need to be returned to council for approval in future meetings.

Ending note Council wrapped a long December agenda after public comment and technical presentations; staff and council members said they will monitor several of the newly authorized programs closely and report back with implementation details and audits of outcomes.