Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Parking Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates commercial parking tax rule as staff warns of legal limits on edits
Summary
City staff briefed a public rule implementing Spokane’s new commercial parking tax; Councilwoman Kakkar and others pressed to allow monthly passes rather than tying exemptions to designated stalls, while staff and legal counsel said enforcement and an attorney‑client privilege legal analysis constrain what edits the council may make now.
Adam McDaniel briefed the draft public rule to implement Spokane’s recently adopted commercial parking tax, flagging administrative and enforcement constraints as the council questioned the rule's requirement that exemptions apply only to designated stalls.
Councilwoman Kakkar asked why the rule ties exemptions to a single designated stall rather than allowing monthly parking passes for employees or residents. “Could you explain again the challenges around why it needs to be designated stalls and not monthly parking passes for employees or residents,” she asked, pressing staff for an operational explanation.
McDaniel and other staff explained the city’s interpretation: if a monthly pass is tied to an identified reserved stall for 30 days or longer the use may qualify for a sales‑and‑use exemption; if access is general, staff said the spot would not be exempt and most other cities treat it similarly. Staff also said administering and enforcing a pass‑based exemption would be difficult.
When council members asked for more detail about a legal analysis cited by staff, counsel identified in the briefing as Chris said attorney‑client privilege limited what could be disclosed. “I can’t say anything that would violate attorney‑client privilege,” the counsel said, and the council was told that, absent waiving that privilege by a five‑vote motion, their choices were to accept the public rule as proposed or reject it (a rejection would require ordinance changes).
Council members noted policy and timing tradeoffs: reopening the ordinance would likely delay implementation, which staff warned could affect revenue collection; staff said the ordinance is scheduled to take effect April 1 if no further action is taken. Several council members said they would prefer an ordinance change if they opposed the rule’s policy but acknowledged that any such change would follow the council process and delay implementation.
Next steps recorded in the agenda review included motions to consider related amendments; later in the meeting council considered (and ultimately rejected) a related amendment that would have removed the designated‑stall requirement.
The council then moved on to other agenda briefings and announced an executive session later in the meeting. The public rule remains under council consideration; accepting or rejecting it will determine whether an ordinance amendment is required before April 1.
