Two decades since Spokane Valley Incorporation

By Nina Culver Current contributor

There’s something to be said for persistence.

People who supported the creation of a new city in Spokane Valley tried and tried and tried again to get incorporation approved by voters, most notably with four failed tries in the 1990’s. The names and the boundaries of the proposed city changed over the years, until at last the incorporation effort was successful in 2002, though it squeaked through with 51 percent approval.

The city, which officially incorporated on March 31, 2003, will celebrate its 20th anniversary this year, prompting people to look back at the lengthy journey that preceded incorporation.

The city will host a free community celebration from 5 to 7 p.m. on March 31 at the CenterPlace Regional Event Center, with live music, hors d’oeuvres and a nohost bar. An official anniversary proclamation will be read at 6 p.m. and a historical presentation from Jayne Singleton, director of the Spokane Valley Heritage Museum, will begin at 6:30 p.m.

Additional events will be scheduled later in the year, including a mobile historical display that will visit local events. An updated schedule will be posted at www.spokanevalley. org/anniversary.

The lengthy debate over incorporation mostly focused on two things – local control and taxes. Opponents worried that creating a new city would cause taxes to go up, while supporters countered that taxes would not rise. Supporters also pushed the message that a new city would be able to take control over its affairs instead of relying on Spokane County to plow streets and do other tasks.

During one of the efforts in 1994, The Spokesman-Review published a special section dedicated to the incorporation effort. Supporters used their space to argue that taxes would go down, economic prosperity would increase and law enforcement coverage would improve. “Local control always means better services,” they argued.

In that same special section, a group called Concerned Citizens for the Valley, argued the opposite. They argued that the city could impose a business and occupation tax and a utility tax, among others, that would increase the amounts residents were paying. They also worried about a negative impact on businesses.

“The possibility of the formation of another city in Spokane Valley will serve as a negative impact on the location of new businesses and, therefore, employment opportunities for Valley citizens.”

During one of the failed campaigns, supporters tried to make the point that Spokane Valley was a cash cow for Spokane County. In an effort to drive their point home, they procured a fiberglass cow and decorated it with dollar signs and other items, bringing it to various community events. Singleton said she recalls it being in a parade as well.

The cow has since been donated to the Heritage Museum, where it sits in a grassy area outside. “I can’t believe they took her on roller skates through the courthouse,” Singleton said.

Singleton, who then worked with the Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce, became convinced about the benefits of incorporation after a presentation from supporters to the chamber’s board during the final incorporation effort. Those supporters included several who had been involved in other incorporation efforts around the state.

“These gentlemen were professionals,” she said. “They knew all the answers.”

The Chamber voted to support incorporation, which was seen by many as an important endorsement. Supporters commissioned various feasibility studies, including a financial study that showed that the new city would have an immediate budget surplus, Singleton said. Armed with these facts, supporters campaigned hard.

“We did a lot of presentations,” Singleton said. “It was well organized.”

She said she believes the final incorporation attempt succeeded where others had failed because it was more professionally run and less of a grass-roots effort. “It was real serious,” she said. “At some point in the incorporation campaign I was thinking this was going to be a successful outcome.”

Attorney Cary Driskell was working for the law firm Trunkenbolz, Rohr and Driskell when he first got involved in the incorporation effort. One of his firm’s clients was a longtime incorporation supporter and asked Driskell to be their volunteer legal counsel because of a threat of a lawsuit from the City of Spokane, which wanted to annex what was known as the Yardley district between Havana and Fancher. That area was included in the proposed boundaries of Spokane Valley.

Spokane did, in fact, sue, but the case was later withdrawn. Driskell became one of the cochairs of the incorporation effort. As a resident of the proposed new city, Driskell said he saw the low level of service provided by Spokane County. Even though the area looked and felt like a big city, they were given a level of service that might be expected in a rural area, Driskell said.

The work was not done after the incorporation effort squeaked out a victory. The city was to be a city manager form of government, meaning that the manager would run the city while the city council elected one of their members to be a largely ceremonial mayor who would also run the city council meetings.

Then came months of transition committee meetings, where a lot of decisions needed to be made. Would the city contract with the Spokane County Sheriff’s Office for law enforcement services or would they create their own police department? Who would maintain the streets? What would the city’s development codes be?

Driskell served on the courts transition committee and volunteered to write the new city’s criminal code. “I found the work interesting,” he said.

Local attorney Howard Herman, an incorporation supporter, wrote a guest column in The Spokesman-Review on June 15, 2002 advocating that Spokane Valley become a contract city, providing few services itself while contracting others to do tasks like plowing snow and providing law enforcement.