2021, 05-18 Study Session
AGENDA
SPOKANE VALLEYCITY COUNCIL
REGULARMEETING
STUDY SESSION FORMAT
Tuesday,May 18,20216:00 p.m.
Remotely via ZOOM Meeting
10210E Sprague Avenue
Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones DuringCouncil Meeting
NOTE:In response to Governor Inslee's March 24, 2020 Proclamation concerning the COVID-19
Emergency, which waives and suspends the requirement to hold in-person meetings and provides options
for the public to attend remotely, physical public attendance at Spokane Valley Council meetings are
suspended until the Governor's order has been rescinded or amended. Therefore, until further notice, a live
feed of the meeting will be available on our website and on Comcast channel 14. Public comments will
only be accepted for those items noted on the agenda as “public comment opportunity,”will be
accepted via the following links, and must be received by 4:00 pm the day of themeeting.
Sign up to Provide Oral Public Comment at the Meeting via Calling-In
Submit Written Public Comment Prior to the Meeting
Join the Zoom WEB Meeting
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
ACTION ITEMS:
1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2021Budget Amendment –Chelsie Taylor \[public commentopportunity\]
2.First Reading Ordinance 21-006 Amending 2021 Budget –Chelsie Taylor
\[no public commentopportunity\]
3. Motion Consideration: Proposed Land Acquisition, Ponderosa Property –Cary Driskell
\[public comment opportunity\]
4. Motion Consideration: Proposed Land Acquisition, Flora Rd & Montgomery Ave –Bill Helbig
\[public comment opportunity\]
5. Motion Consideration: Bid Award, Evergreen Preservation –Bill Helbig
\[public comment opportunity\]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NON-ACTION ITEMS:
DISCUSSION LEADERSUBJECT/ACTIVITY___ GOAL__________
6. Adam Jackson Draft 2022-2027 Six Year Discussion/Information
Transportation Improvement Program
7. Chaz Bates Housing Action Plan Discussion/Information
8. John Bottelli, Carol Carter,Events, Activities and RecreationDiscussion/Information
Patty Bischoff, Tina GregersonIn Phase 3 Covid-19
9.Mayor Wick Advance Agenda Discussion/Information
10. Information Only (willnot be reported or discussed):Spokane Regional Law & Justice Council Report
11. Mayor Wick Council CommentsDiscussion/Information
12. Mark Calhoun City Manager CommentsDiscussion/Information
ADJOURN
Council Agenda May 18, 2021Page 1of 1
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date:May18, 2021 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply:consent old business new business public hearing
informationadmin. reportpending legislationexecutive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE:Public Hearing on the proposed 2021BudgetAmendment.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:In order for the City to amend an adopted budget,State law
requires the Council to approve an ordinancethat appropriates additional funds.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:The Council last took formal action on the 2021
Budget when it was adopted on December8, 2020.On May 4, 2021an Administrative Report
was delivered to Councilregarding the need for a budget amendment.
BACKGROUND:Since the initial adoption of the 2021 Budget on December 8, 2020,a number
of events have transpired in the normal course of operations that necessitate a 2021 Budget
amendment. The proposed budget amendments include:
#001-General Fund
The total of both recurring and nonrecurring revenues reflect an increase of $3,286,800, which
is comprised of:
Sales taxes are increased to the amount of actual collections in 2020:
$2,980,000 increase in general sales tax collections due to current economic conditions.
$105,200 increase in public safety sales tax collections due to current economic
conditions.
$177,600 increase in criminal justice sales tax collections due to current economic
conditions.
$24,000 increase for an estimated FEMA grant for costs related to a windstorm in January
2021.
Provide additional appropriations (expenditures) of $12,769,313comprised of:
$7,106 increase in benefits costs for the City Council Department related to providing
pension benefits to councilmembers.
$5,750 increase in software licenses and maintenance costs related to paying for six months
of service on the GovQA public records software system.
$391,754 increase in Public Safety for estimated 2021 costs related to implementing a new
DEMS/Taser/Body Camera bundle for the Police Department. This represents the City’s
share of the upfront costs for the system, and consists of $282,146 in recurring expenditures
rd
and$109,608 in nonrecurring expenditures. Council discussed this cost at the March 23
th
and April 6Council meetings.
$72,508 increase in salaries and related payroll taxes and benefits in the City Hall O&M
Department and a corresponding decrease of the same amountin the Building Department
due to repurposing an existing position due to workload.
$51,299increase in the Economic Development Divisionfor the in-house GIS Analyst
position. This amount includes $46,299in salaries and related payroll taxes and benefits
and $5,000 in supplies, training, and memberships for that position. The salaries, payroll
taxes, and benefits are included for six months at 77% in the General Fund and 23% in the
Stormwater Fund #402.
1
$1,040 decreasein professional services for the Parks and Recreation Admin Division.
There is a corresponding increase of $1,040 in the nonrecurring transfers out to the Parks
Capital Projects Fund #309 for fencing costs to completethe CenterPlace West Lawn
improvement project in order to finish securing the area.
$5,000 increase for furniture for the new Housing and Homeless Services Coordinator
position. This was included but not spent in the 2020Budget.
$62,000 increase to replace the HVAC units at the Precinct. There was $60,000 included
but not spentin the 2020 Budget for this item. The increase represents the actual costs for
this project.
$32,000 increase for cleanup costs from a January 2021 windstorm. We are anticipating a
FEMA grant to reimburse 75% of these costs.
$693,000 increase in transfers out to the Street O&M Fund #101 to cover an increase in the
estimated operating deficit caused by the anticipated decrease in fuel taxes and telephone
utility taxes from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the economy.
$364,440 to replenish the Winter Weather Reserve Fund #122 back to a fund balance of
$500,000. The Street O&M Fund was over budget on snow removal expenditures in 2020 by
about $364,440.
$14,876 increase in transfers to the Parks Capital Projects Fund #309 for the CenterPlace
west lawn improvements. This includes an additional $1,040 that is being reduced out of the
Parks and Recreation Admin Division for additional fencing costs as described above as
well as $13,836 of the previously approved amount from the 2020 Budget to complete the
project in 2021.
$12,227 increase in transfers to the Parks Capital Projects Fund #309 for the CenterPlace
roof replacement for work that was included in the 2020 Budget but was not able to be
completed prior to the end of the year.
$11,126,343 transferred to Capital Reserve Fund #312 which represents the 2019 yearend
fund balance in excess of 50% of recurring expenditures.
#101–Street O&MFund
Revenues have a netchange of $0; however, recurring revenues are estimated to decrease by
$693,000 due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the economy. The decrease is
comprised of $431,000 in the telephone utility tax and $262,000 in motor vehicle fuel taxes. The
estimated deficit of $693,000 in operating activity caused by this decrease is then proposed to
be covered by a transfer in from the General Fund in the same amount.
#122–Winter Weather Reserve Fund
Revenues are increased by $364,440 reflecting a transferin from the General Fund #001 to
replenish the fund balance to $500,000. The Street O&M Fund was over budget on snow
removal expenditures in 2020 by about $364,440, which was reimbursed to Fund #101 from
Fund #122 during that year.
#309–Park Capital Projects Fund
This fund is being amended to reflect current estimates on a number of projects. Revenues are
increased by $224,691reflecting:
$44,730 increase in grant proceeds for the Browns Park 2020 improvements. The increase
is related to the timing of actual construction on the project.
$27,103 increase in transfers in from the General Fund for improvements to the CenterPlace
west lawn and the replacement of the CenterPlace roof. See additional information above
under the General Fund #001.
$152,858 increase in transfers in from the Capital Reserve Fund #312 for the Sullivan Park
water line project.
2
Expenditures increase by $384,887, including:
An increase of $14,876 to complete the improvements to the CenterPlace west lawn. See
additional information above under the General Fund #001.
An increase of $12,227 to complete the replacement of the CenterPlace roof. See additional
information above under the General Fund #001.
An increase of $204,926 for Browns Park 2020 improvements. This increase trues up the
costs to the actual bid awarded for the project. There is sufficient fund balance to account
for the increased costs.
An increase of $152,858 for preliminary engineering costs for the Sullivan Park water line
project.
#312–Capital Reserve Fund
Revenues are increased due to a transfer of $11,126,343 from General Fund #001 which
represents the 2019 yearend fund balance in excess of 50% of recurring expenditures.This
amount is higher than we generally see because the City did not transfer the 2018yearend fund
balance in excess of 50% due to the uncertainty of the economy during 2020 with the COVID-19
pandemic. As such, the 2018 amounts remained in the fund balance and were included in the
calculation for the 2019 fund balance.
Increases expenditures/appropriations of $2,052,858, including $152,858 in transfers out to the
Parks Capital Projects Fund #309 for the Sullivan Park water line project.There is also
$1,900,000 proposed for land acquisition with $300,000 for land at Flora and Montgomery for a
future trailhead and $1,600,000 for Ponderosa parkland.
#402–Stormwater Management Fund
Provide additional appropriations (expenditures) of $13,830for salaries, payroll taxes, and
benefits for the in-house GIS Analyst position. The salaries, payroll taxes, and benefits are
included for six months at 77% in the Economic Development Division in the General Fund and
23% in the Stormwater Fund #402.
The 2021 Budget amendment reflects the changes noted above and will affect 6 funds resulting
in total revenue increases of $15,002,274 and expenditure increases of $15,216,330.
RevenueExpenditure
FundFundIncreaseIncrease
No.Name(Decrease)(Decrease)
001General Fund3,286,80012,764,755
101Street O&M Fund00
122Winter Weather Reserve Fund364,4400
309Parks Capital Projects Fund224,691384,887
312Capital Reserve Fund11,126,3432,052,858
402Storwater Management Fund013,830
15,002,27415,216,330
The 2021 Budget amendment also includes one change to the Employee PositionClassification
Monthly Salary Schedule to add the GIS Analyst position. This additional position will add 1 FTE
bringing the total FTEs to 96.25 from 95.25. This FTE will be split 0.77 to the General Fund and
0.23 to the Stormwater Fund #402.
3
OPTIONS:Future options are to accept the proposed amendments in whole or in-part.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:The purpose of this evening’s public hearing is to
consider input from the public on the proposed budget amendment and no action is requiredof
Council at this time. A first reading of Ordinance #21-006 is scheduled immediately after the
public hearing. Anticipated future actionby the Council includes:
May25, 2021–Second reading of Ordinance #21-006amending the 2021 Budget.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS:This action amends the estimated revenues and
appropriations for the 2021 Budget that was adopted on December 8, 2020. There are
adequate funds available to pay for these amendments.
STAFF CONTACT:Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director
___________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
Fund level line-item detail of revenues and expenditures.
Fund summaries for all funds affected by the proposed budget amendment.
Proposed amended Employee Position Classification Monthly Salary Schedule.
4
(h/m tax-CP advertising)
(2016 LTGO debt service)
(park capital projects)
(pavement preservation)
(CenterPlace kitchen reserve)
(insurance premium)
(office furniture for Housing Serv emplo
(replace HVAC units at Precinct)
(replace handguns)
(radar trailer)
(Precinct access control gate)
(Precinct fire panel replacement)
(DEMS/Tasers/BodyCams)
(Ecology SMP Update)
(Street Fund operations)
(replenish reserve)
(CenterPlace west lawn)
(CenterPlace roof repairs)
('19 fund bal >50%)
Fund balance as a percent of recurring expenditures90.33%68.79%
(non-plow vehicle rental)
(plow replace.)
('19 fund bal >50%)
(Balfour Park frontage improvem
(Sullivan Park water line)
(Pines Rd Underpass)
(Barker Rd Overpass)
(Sullivan Rd Interchange)
Note: Slight rounding differences may exist between the figures reflected on this page and
the actual payroll rates computed by the Eden Payroll System.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date:May18, 2021 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply:consent old business new business public hearing
informationadmin. reportpending legislationexecutive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE:First reading of proposed Ordinance #21-006which amends the 2021
Budget.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:In order for the City to amend an adopted budget,State law
requires the Council to approve an ordinancethat appropriates additional funds.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:The Council last took formal action on the 2021
Budget when it was adopted on December8, 2020.On May 4, 2021,an Administrative Report
was delivered to Council regarding the need for a budget amendment. Finally, earlier this
evening a public hearing was held on this topic.
BACKGROUND:Since the initial adoption of the 2021 Budget on December 8, 2020, a number
of events have transpired in the normal course of operations that necessitate a 2021 Budget
amendment. The proposed amendments include:
#001-General Fund
The total of both recurring and nonrecurring revenues reflect an increase of $3,286,800, which
is comprised of:
Sales taxes are increased to the amount of actual collections in 2020:
$2,980,000 increase in general sales tax collections due to current economic conditions.
$105,200 increase in public safety sales tax collections due to current economic
conditions.
$177,600 increase in criminal justice sales tax collections due to current economic
conditions.
$24,000 increase for an estimated FEMA grant for costs related to a windstorm in January
2021.
Provide additional appropriations (expenditures) of $12,769,313comprised of:
$7,106 increase in benefits costs for the City Council Department related to providing
pension benefits to councilmembers.
$5,750 increase in software licenses and maintenance costs related to paying for six months
of service on the GovQA public records software system.
$391,754 increase in Public Safety for estimated 2021 costs related to implementing a new
DEMS/Taser/Body Camera bundle for the Police Department. This represents the City’s
share of the upfront costs for the system, and consists of $282,146 in recurring expenditures
rd
and$109,608 in nonrecurring expenditures. Council discussed this cost at the March 23
th
and April 6Council meetings.
$72,508 increase in salaries and related payroll taxes and benefits in the City Hall O&M
Department and a corresponding decrease of the same amountin the Building Department
due to repurposing an existing position due to workload.
$51,299increase in the Economic Development Divisionfor the in-house GIS Analyst
position. This amount includes $46,299in salaries and related payroll taxes and benefits
and $5,000 in supplies, training, and memberships for that position. The salaries, payroll
1
taxes, and benefits are included for six months at 77% in the General Fund and 23% in the
Stormwater Fund #402.
$1,040 decreasein professional services for the Parks and Recreation Admin Division.
There is a corresponding increase of $1,040 in the nonrecurring transfers out to the Parks
Capital Projects Fund #309 for fencing costs to completethe CenterPlace West Lawn
improvement project in order to finish securing the area.
$5,000 increase for furniture for the new Housing and Homeless Services Coordinator
position. This was included butnot spent in the 2020Budget.
$62,000 increase to replace the HVAC units at the Precinct. There was $60,000 included
but not spentin the 2020 Budget for this item. The increase represents the actual costs for
this project.
$32,000 increase for cleanup costs from a January 2021 windstorm. We are anticipating a
FEMA grant to reimburse 75% of these costs.
$693,000 increase in transfers out to the Street O&M Fund #101 to cover an increase in the
estimated operating deficit caused by the anticipated decrease in fuel taxes and telephone
utility taxes from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the economy.
$364,440 to replenish the Winter Weather Reserve Fund #122 back to a fund balance of
$500,000. The Street O&M Fund was over budget on snow removal expenditures in 2020 by
about $364,440.
$14,876 increase in transfers to the Parks Capital Projects Fund #309 for the CenterPlace
west lawn improvements. This includes an additional $1,040 that is being reduced out of the
Parks and Recreation Admin Division for additional fencing costs as described above as
well as $13,836 of the previously approved amount from the 2020 Budget to complete the
project in 2021.
$12,227 increase in transfers to the Parks Capital Projects Fund #309 for the CenterPlace
roof replacement for work that was included in the 2020 Budget but was not able to be
completed prior to the end of the year.
$11,126,343 transferred to Capital Reserve Fund #312 which represents the 2019 yearend
fund balance in excess of 50% of recurring expenditures.
#101–Street O&MFund
Revenues have a net change of $0; however, recurring revenues are estimated to decrease by
$693,000 due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the economy. The decrease is
comprised of $431,000 in the telephone utility tax and $262,000 in motor vehicle fuel taxes. The
estimated deficit of $693,000 in operating activity caused by this decrease is then proposed to
be covered by a transfer in from the General Fund in the same amount.
#122–Winter Weather Reserve Fund
Revenues are increased by $364,440 reflecting a transfer in from the General Fund #001 to
replenish the fund balance to $500,000. The Street O&M Fund was over budget on snow
removal expenditures in 2020 by about $364,440, which was reimbursed to Fund #101 from
Fund #122during that year.
#309–Park Capital Projects Fund
This fund is being amended to reflect current estimates on a number of projects. Revenues are
increased by $224,691reflecting:
$44,730 increase in grant proceeds for the Browns Park 2020 improvements. The increase
is related to the timing of actual construction on the project.
$27,103 increase in transfers in from the General Fund for improvements to the CenterPlace
west lawn and the replacement of the CenterPlace roof. See additional information above
under the General Fund #001.
2
$152,858 increase in transfers in from the Capital Reserve Fund #312 for the Sullivan Park
water line project.
Expenditures increase by $384,887, including:
An increase of $14,876 to complete the improvements to the CenterPlace west lawn. See
additional information above under the General Fund #001.
An increase of $12,227 to complete the replacement of the CenterPlace roof. See additional
information above under the General Fund #001.
An increase of $204,926 for Browns Park 2020 improvements. This increase trues up the
costs to the actual bid awarded for the project. There is sufficient fund balance to account
for the increased costs.
An increase of $152,858 for preliminary engineering costs for the Sullivan Park water line
project.
#312–Capital Reserve Fund
Revenues are increased due to a transfer of $11,126,343 from General Fund #001 which
represents the 2019 yearend fund balance in excess of 50% of recurring expenditures.This
amount is higher than we generally see becausethe City did not transfer the 2018 yearend fund
balance in excess of 50% due to the uncertainty of the economy during 2020 with the COVID-19
pandemic. As such, the 2018 amounts remained in the fund balance and were included in the
calculation for the 2019fund balance.
Increases expenditures/appropriations of $2,052,858, including $152,858 in transfers out to the
Parks Capital Projects Fund #309 for the Sullivan Park water line project.There is also
$1,900,000 proposed for land acquisition with $300,000 for land at Flora and Montgomery for a
future trailhead and $1,600,000 for Ponderosa parkland.
#402–Stormwater Management Fund
Provide additional appropriations (expenditures) of $13,830for salaries, payroll taxes, and
benefits for the in-house GIS Analyst position. The salaries, payroll taxes, and benefits are
included for six months at 77% in the Economic Development Division in the General Fund and
23% in the Stormwater Fund #402.
The 2021 Budget amendment reflects the changes noted above and will affect 6 funds resulting
in total revenue increases of $15,002,274 and expenditure increases of $15,216,330.
RevenueExpenditure
FundFundIncreaseIncrease
No.Name(Decrease)(Decrease)
001General Fund3,286,80012,764,755
101Street O&M Fund00
122Winter Weather Reserve Fund364,4400
309Parks Capital Projects Fund224,691384,887
312Capital Reserve Fund11,126,3432,052,858
402Storwater Management Fund013,830
15,002,27415,216,330
The 2021 Budget amendment also includes one change to the Employee PositionClassification
Monthly Salary Schedule to add the GIS Analyst position.This additional position will add 1 FTE
3
bringing the total FTEs to 96.25 from 95.25. This FTE will be split 0.77 to the General Fund and
0.23 to the Stormwater Fund #402.
OPTIONS:Options are to accept the proposed amendments in whole or in-part.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:Move to advance Ordinance #21-006amending the
2021Budget to a second reading.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS:This action amends the estimated revenues and
appropriations for the 2021 Budget that was adopted on December 8, 2020. There are
adequate funds available to pay for these amendments.
STAFF CONTACT:Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director
ATTACHMENTS:Draft Ordinance#21-006
4
DRAFT
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCENO. 21-006
ANORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANECOUNTY,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE 20-023,WHICH ADOPTEDA BUDGET FOR THE
PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2021THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2021;AND OTHER MATTERS
RELATED THERETO.
WHEREAS, the City Council approvedOrdinance 20-023onDecember 8, 2020, which adopted
the 2021annual budget;and
WHEREAS,subsequent to the December 8, 2020adoption of the2021 annual budget, it has
become necessary to make changes by adding new revenue,appropriations, amendments, and transferring
funds in order to properly perform City functions, services and activities; and
WHEREAS,certain changes to employee positions have been made by the City Manager, which
necessitate changes to the Employee Position Classification Monthly Salary Schedule that was included in
the 2021 annual budget; and
WHEREAS,the budget changes set forth in this Ordinancecould not have been reasonably
anticipatedor known when the 2021annual budget was passed by the City Council; and
WHEREAS,the City Council has determined that the best interests of the City are served by
amending the2021budget to reflect unanticipated revenue, expenditures, transfers,and appropriating the
same as set forth herein.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington do ordain as
follows:
Section 1.Amended Revenuesand Appropriations.Ordinance No. 20-023adopteda budget for
the twelve monthsbeginning January 1, 2021andending December 31,2021. Each item, revenue,
appropriation, and fundcontained in Section 1of Ordinance 20-023ishereby further amended as set forth
in AttachmentAto this Ordinance, which is incorporated herein.
Section 2.Amended Employee Position Classification Monthly Salary Schedule.Ordinance No.
20-023adopted an Employee Position Classification Monthly Salary Schedule as part of the budget forthe
twelve months beginning January 1, 2021 and ending December 31, 2021. The schedule is hereby amended
as set forth in Attachment B to this Ordinance, which is incorporated herein.
Section 3.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 4.Effective Date.This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after
publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City as provided by
law.
Ordinance 21-006amending the 2021budgetPage 1of 4
Passed by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley this ____ day of May 2021.
ATTEST:
Ben Wick, Mayor
___________________________
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
__________________________
Office of the City Attorney
Date of Publication: ___________
Effective Date: _______________
Ordinance 21-006amending the 2021budgetPage 2of 4
4
of
3
Page
A
ATTACHMENT
budget
2021
amending the
006
-
21
Ordinance
ATTACHMENT B
EMPLOYEE POSITION CLASSIFICATION
MONTHLY SALARY SCHEDULE
Effective January 1, 2021
Position TitleGrade2021 Range
City ManagerUnclassified
Deputy City Manager2210,063.44 -16,365.38
City Attorney219,066.16 -14,728.96
Finance Director219,066.16 -14,728.96
Parks and Recreation Director208,159.44 -13,257.04
City Engineer197,343.36 -11,931.46
Deputy City Attorney197,343.36 -11,931.46
Human Resources Manager197,343.36 -11,931.46
Planning Manager186,609.87 -10,737.79
Building Official186,609.87 -10,737.79
Engineering Manager186,609.87 -10,737.79
Economic Development Manager186,609.87 -10,737.79
Senior Engineer 175,948.55 -9,663.61
Accounting Manager175,948.55 -9,663.61
Assistant Building Official175,948.55 -9,663.61
Public Works Superintendent175,948.55 -9,663.61
Senior Administrative Analyst175,948.55 -9,663.61
IT Manager175,948.55 -9,663.61
Attorney165,353.16 -8,696.69
City Clerk165,353.16 -8,696.69
Engineer 165,353.16 -8,696.69
Senior Planner165,353.16 -8,696.69
Development Services Coordinator165,353.16 -8,696.69
GIS/Database Administrator165,353.16 -8,696.69
Accountant/Budget Analyst165,353.16 -8,696.69
Housing and Homeless Services Coordinator165,353.16 -8,696.69
Associate Planner154,818.50 -7,827.56
Assistant Engineer154,818.50 -7,827.56
IT Specialist154,818.50 -7,827.56
Engineering Technician II154,818.50 -7,827.56
Economic Development Project Specialist154,818.50 -7,827.56
Senior Plans Examiner154,818.50 -7,827.56
Public Information Officer 154,818.50 -7,827.56
Administrative Analyst154,818.50 -7,827.56
Maintenance/Construction Foreman154,818.50 -7,827.56
GIS Analyst154,818.50 -7,827.56
Mechanic144,336.92 -7,045.35
Human Resource Analyst 144,336.92 -7,045.35
CenterPlace Coordinator144,336.92 -7,045.35
Planner144,336.92 -7,045.35
Building Inspector II144,336.92 -7,045.35
Plans Examiner144,336.92 -7,045.35
Engineering Technician I144,336.92 -7,045.35
Senior Permit Specialist144,336.92 -7,045.35
Code Enforcement Officer144,336.92 -7,045.35
Maintenance/Construction Inspector 144,336.92 -7,045.35
Recreation Coordinator133,902.91 -6,340.57
Deputy City Clerk133,902.91 -6,340.57
Customer Relations/Facilities Coordinator133,902.91 -6,340.57
Building Inspector I133,902.91 -6,340.57
Executive Assistant133,902.91 -6,340.57
Planning Technician133,902.91 -6,340.57
Human Resources Technician133,902.91 -6,340.57
Senior Center Specialist123,513.90 -5,706.37
Permit Facilitator123,513.90 -5,706.37
Help Desk Technician123,513.90 -5,706.37
Accounting Technician123,513.90 -5,706.37
Administrative Assistant123,513.90 -5,706.37
Recreation Specialist123,513.90 -5,706.37
Maintenance Worker11-123,161.54 -5,706.37
Permit Specialist 113,161.54 -5,135.98
Office Assistant II10-112,845.20 -5,135.98
Custodian102,845.20 -4,621.30
Office Assistant I9-102,561.00 -4,621.30
Note: Slight rounding differences may exist between the figures reflected on this page and
the actual payroll rates computed by the Eden Payroll System.
Ordinance 21-006amending the 2021budgetPage 4 of 4
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date:May 18, 2021Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply:consentold businessnew businesspublic hearing
informationadmin. reportpending legislationexecutive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE:Motion consideration -proposedland acquisition–Central Valley School
th
District Ponderosa propertyat 44Avenue and Bates Road.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:RCW 35A.11.020;RCW 36.34.340;SVMC 3.49.010.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:May 4, 2021administrative report.
BACKGROUND:In years past, CVSD purchased a number of large parcels in various areas CVSD
thought may experience enough growth to warrant construction of a school facility. As time passes, CVSD
gets more clarity on whether such parcels are needed, or whether unneededparcels could be sold and the
sale proceedsused elsewheremore effectively.
The Central Valley School District (CVSD) owns six parcels of real property generally located at or near
th
the location of Bates Road and 44Avenue in the Ponderosa area, more particularly identified as Spokane
County Assessor Parcel Numbers 44041.0102, 44041.0103, 44041.0104, 44041.9007, 44041.9046, and
44041.9048, all of which comprise approximately 17.7 acres. Discussions between staff for the respective
agencies determined there may be mutual interest in a sale from CVSD to the City for park purposes. This
lies in an area that was identified in the recent Parks Master Plan Update in 2019 as an area needing
additional park space.(Seemap of the future park needs from the 2019 Parks Master Plan Update, attached.)
In the discussions with CVSD, City staff also learnedthat Fire District 8 would likely be interested in
participating in the acquisition. Fire District 8 has a station on the southwest corner of the intersection of
th
44and Bates, but the facility isrelatively old, and Fire District 8 may want to replace it with a modern
facility that has additional amenities. City staff has been in contact with them as well.
CVSD had the property appraised, and in a January 5, 2021 appraisal report, the fair market value was
established at $1,575,000 for all six combined parcels. The City finalizinga purchase and sale agreement
with CVSD for that amount.At the same time, City staff have been negotiating an interlocal agreement
with Fire District 8 similar to what we did with the Spokane County Library District for the Balfour property
across the street from City Hall. In this situation, once the City owned the property, it would sell three to
four acres to Fire District 8. We would then enter into a joint site development plan where the City and
Fire District 8 would scope out what their needs were, and adjust the amount of acreage to Fire District8
accordingly.That would be followed by a boundary line adjustment to clean up the property boundaries.
Asatellite image of the site is included for referenceregarding the location.
OPTIONS:(1) Approve purchase of 17.7 acres from CVSD; or (2) take other action as appropriate.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:I move we authorize the City Manager to finalize and
execute any paperwork necessary to purchase approximately 17.7 acres of vacant land from Central Valley
School District for $1.575 million, comprised of Spokane County Assessor Parcel Numbers 44041.0102,
44041.0103, 44041.0104, 44041.9007, 44041.9046, and 44041.9048.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS:$1,575,000 plus associated closing costs in closing a
transaction.Acquisition of this property is not currently included as an appropriation in the 2021 Budget.If
the acquisition is approved, the funds are anticipated to come from Fund 312 from the newest layer of
transfers from the General Fund, which is included in the proposed 2021 budget amendment that is currently
in process.First reading of the 2021 budget amendment ordinance is also ontonight’s agenda.
STAFF CONTACT:Cary Driskell, City Attorney; John Bottelli, Parks, Recreation and Facilities Director.
___________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
(1) satellite map of vicinity with proposed purchase area outlined in green; and
(2) map ofthe future park needs from the 2019 Parks Master Plan Update.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date:May 18, 2021 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply:consent old business new business public hearing
informationadmin. reportpending legislationexecutive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE:Motion Consideration: Proposed Land Acquisition,Flora Road&
Montgomery Avenue
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:RCW 35A.11.020; SVMC 3.49.010
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:May 4, 2021: AdministrativeReport
BACKGROUND:The City of SpokaneValley, along with other local and regional entities as
partners, is instrumental in the ongoing operations and maintenance of the Centennial Trail, a 37
mile long trail that winds from the Nine Mile Recreation Area on Lake Spokane eastward to the
Idaho border. Within the borders of the City of Spokane Valley, the City is responsible for general
maintenance and operations of the trail.
The development of additional parking facilities and trailheads has been an integral part of
expanding the trail facilities. One such location for a proposed trailhead is located at the
intersection of North Flora Road and East Montgomery Avenue. Recently, Spokane County
approached the City indicating they would like to surplus Spokane County parcel number
55073.0458at this location, which encompasses 19,690 square feet. The County isoffering it to
the City for purchase. After consideration regarding the existing Centennial Trail and the planned
City Spokane River Loop Trail, purchase and development of this parcel by the City would provide
a valuable park system amenity to the region.
As part of its due diligence, Spokane County completed an appraisal of the property, establishing
the fair market value of the parcel at $286,000. The City, after reviewing the appraisal, concurs
that the appraisal represents the fair market value. In order for the City to further the development
of the Centennial Trail and its possible connection to the City’s Spokane River Loop Trail at Flora
Road, acquisition of this parcel for the development of a trailhead with parking is recommended.
OPTIONS:1) Move to acquire the parcelfrom Spokane County, or 2) take other appropriate
action.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:Move to authorize staff to finalize and execute any
documents necessary to acquire Spokane County parcel number 55073.0458from Spokane
County for future parksandrecreation facility use.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS:The total acquisition costs for theparcel is $286,000 plus
associated closing costs. Acquisition of this property is included as an appropriation in the Capital
Reserve Fund #312, included in the 2021 Budget Amendment #1.
STAFF CONTACT:Bill Helbig,City Engineer
ATTACHMENTS:Flora Road & Montgomery AvenueProperty Acquisition
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: May 18, 2021 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: Bid Award Evergreen Road Preservation-
Sprague Avenue to Broadway Avenue.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 3.35.10 Contract Authority
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
May 21, 2019: Administrative Report on the 2020-2021 Six Year Transportation
Improvement Plan, which included this project.
June 4, 2019: Council passed Resolution 19-008, adopting the 2020-2021 Six Year
Transportation Improvement Plan, which included this project.
May 5, 2020: Administrative Report on the 2021-2026 Six Year Transportation
Improvement Plan, which included this project.
May 26, 2020: Council passed Resolution 20-009, adopting the 2021-2026 Six Year
Transportation Improvement Plan, which included this project.
BACKGROUND:
The road preservation project grinds and provides an asphalt overlay on Evergreen Road from
Sprague Avenue to Broadway Avenue. The project includes installation of ADA curb ramps,
pavement repairs, channelization, ITS conduit, and signal upgrades at the Broadway intersection.
The current estimated project budget and cost are shown below:
Project Costs Project Budget
Preliminary Engineering $ 45,500 City Fund 301 $ 350,000
Construction $ 1,854,500 City Fund 311 $ 1,550,000
Total Estimated Costs $ 1,900,000 Total Budget $ 1,900,000
The project was designed in house and advertised on April 20, 2021. Bids will be opened on May
14, 2021, and as such, inclusion of the Bid Tabulation and recommendation for award is not
available at time of Council Agenda publication. This information and a formal recommendation
will be made at the Council Meeting, the timing of which is necessary to assure timely project
completion.
OPTIONS: Move to award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, or take other
appropriate action
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to award the Evergreen Road Preservation Project
CIP #323 to _____________________________ and authorize the City Manager to finalize and
execute the construction contract.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Budget impacts will be discussed with Council at the meeting.
STAFF CONTACT: William Helbig, PE, City Engineer
ATTACHMENTS: The Bid Tabulation and award recommendation will be provided at the meeting.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date:May 18, 2021 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: consent old business new business public hearing
informationadmin. report pending legislationexecutive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE:Draft2022-2027 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.77.010, Perpetual advanced six-year plans for
coordinated transportation program expenditures.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Annual adoption of the TIP and its amendments.
BACKGROUND: TheTIP is composed of transportation projects intended to be implemented
in the next six years that address the transportation needs within the City of Spokane Valley.
The City is required by RCW 35.77.010 toprepare and, after holding a public hearing, adopt a
comprehensive transportation program for the ensuing six calendar years. This plan must be
th
submitted to the Washington State Department of Transportation by June 30of each year.
The attached draft six-yearTIP presents an integrated approach to project selection and
phasing that has been aligned with recent master plans, upcoming redevelopment projects,
economic development efforts, land use changes, stormwater and water district plans, and
capital projects by partner agencies.
The six-year TIP is required to be financially constrained. Currently the six-year TIP may exceed
financial expectations; however, it does accurately reflect the City’s short-term transportation
needs and provides a prioritized path forward.
OPTIONS:Discussion
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:Noneat this time. The public hearing for this TIP is
scheduled for June 8, 2021, along with a resolutionto adopt the TIP, for Council’sconsideration.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The required City match on federal and state fundedprojects
is typically between 10% and 20%. A review of projected REET funds through 2027 will be
provided to determine if there are sufficient funds to provide the City’s match for the
recommended projects.
STAFF CONTACT: Adam Jackson, P.E. – Planning & Grants Engineer
___________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation
Draft Resolution 21-xxx
Draft 2022-2027Six-Year TIP Report
DRAFT
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION 21-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE 2022-2027TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING
THERETO.
WHEREAS, to provide for the proper and necessary development of the street system within the
City of Spokane Valley, the City shall, pursuant to RCW 35.77.010, develop and adopt annually a Six-Year
Transportation Improvement Program (Six-Year TIP) with such program acting as a guide for the
coordinated development of the City’s transportation system; and
WHEREAS, the Six-Year TIP of the City shall specifically set forth those projects and programs
of both City and regional significance that benefit the transportation system and promote public safety and
efficient vehicle movements;and
WHEREAS, the Six-Year TIP shall be consistent with the City’sComprehensive Planand be
adopted following one or more public hearings before the City Council; and
WHEREAS, a draft copy of the Six-Year TIP was submitted to the Washington State Department
of Commerce and has been reviewed and approvedprior to the scheduled adoption of the TIPin accordance
with RCW 36.70A.106;and
WHEREAS, following adoption of the Six-Year TIP, the City will forward a copy to the
Washington State Secretary of Transportation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on June 8, 2021 for the purpose of
inviting and receiving public comment on the proposed Six-Year TIP.
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane
County, Washington, as follows:
Section 1. The City Council hereby adopts the attached Six-Year TIP for the City of Spokane
Valley for the purpose of guiding the design, development and construction of local and regional
transportationimprovements for the years 2022through 2027. The City Clerk is directed to file the 2022-
2027Six-Year TIPwith the Washington State Secretary of Transportation before June 30,2021. The Six-
Year TIP shall be reviewed at least annually for the purpose of determining the work to be accomplished
under the program and the City’s transportation requirements.
Projects and timeframes identified in theSix-YearTIP are to be considered estimates only that may change
due to a variety of circumstances, and are not intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or
developers in making development decisions.
In the event a railroad ceases to use rail right-of-way within the City, the City will utilize all reasonable
options available under state or federal law to preserve the right-of-way for future rail purposes pursuant to
RCW 35.77.010(3),
Section 2. Effective Date
.This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon adoption.
Resolution 21-XXX, Adopting Six-Year TIP
DRAFT
th
Adopted this 8 day of June, 2021.
ATTEST: City of Spokane Valley
__________________________________
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Ben Wick, Mayor
Approved as to Form:
Office of theCity Attorney
Resolution 21-XXX, Adopting Six-Year TIP
2020 Local Access Streets (Barker Rd. Homes)Sullivan Rd. Bridge Deck ResurfacingCitywide Reflective Post Panels (2018)
123
Citywide Reflective Signal Backplates (2018)Park Rd. SidewalkBarker Rd. Improvements - Spokane River to Euclid
456
Balfour Park Frontage ImprovementsMullan Rd. Preservation - Broadway to MissionAppleway Blvd. Stormwater Improvements
789
Evergreen Rd. Preservation - Sprague to MissionSprague Ave. / Barker Rd. Intersection ImprovementBarker Rd. at Union Pacific Crossing
101112
Pines Rd. / Mission Ave. Intersection ImprovementSullivan Rd. / Wellesley Ave. Intersection ImprovementBroadway Ave. - Havana to Fancher
131415
Broadway Preservation - Fancher to ParkSprague Preservation - Havana to FancherPedestrian & Bicycle Safety Analysis
161718
Sullivan Rd. Preservation - Sprague to 8thSullivan Rd. Preservation - 8th to 16thSprague Ave. Stormwater Improvements
192021
Wilbur Rd. Sidewalk - Boone to MissionBarker Rd. / BNSF Grade Separation ProjectPark Rd. / Mission Ave. Intersection Improvement
222324
8th Ave. Preservation - Progress to SullivanMission Ave. Bridge ResurfacingSpokane Valley River Loop Trail
252627
Argonne Rd. Concrete Pavement - Indiana to MontgomeryPines Rd. (SR27) / BNSF Grade Separation ProjectSullivan Rd. / SR 290 Interchange Reconstruction
282930
Local Access Street Improvements - $1.5M AnnuallyStreet Preservation Projects - $3M AnnuallyCitywide Safety Projects - Biennial
313233
Mission Ave. Preservation - Mullan to UniversitySouth Bowdish Rd. - Phased Corridor ImprovementsSullivan Rd. Preservation - 16th to S. City Limit
343536
Dishman-Mica Rd. Preservation - Schafer to S. City LimitVera Crest + Rocky Ridge Street Reconstruction Projects8th Ave. / Carnahan Rd. Intersection Improvement
373839
Barker Rd. Intersection Improvements at 4th & 8thMirabeau Parkway / Mansfield Ave. Intersection ImprovementBarker Rd. Improvement Project - I-90 to Appleway
404142
Flora Rd. Reconstruction - Euclid to GarlandPark Rd. Preservation - Sprague to TrentFlora Rd. / SR 290 Intersection Improvement
434445
Cataldo Ave. Realignment at Barker Rd.32nd Ave. Preservation - Pines to SR 27Wellesley Ave. Preservation - Sullivan to Flora
464748
Barker Rd. Improvement - Appleway to S. City LimitsPines Rd. (SR-27) / 16th Ave. Intersection ImprovementBarker Rd. - Mission to Interstate 90
495051
8th Ave. Preservation - Havana to ParkAppleway Trail - Farr to Dishman MicaArgonne Rd. & I-90 Interchange Bridge Widening
525354
8th Ave. / Park Rd. Intersection ImprovementBarker Rd. / Boone Ave. Intersection ImprovementBroadway Ave. Improvements - Flora to Barker
555657
4th Ave. / Pines Rd. (SR 27) Intersection ImprovementsSullivan Rd. / Kiernan Ave. Intersection ImprovementSullivan Rd. / Marietta Ave. Intersection Improvement
585960
Boone Ave. Reconstruction - Flora to BarkerFlora Rd. Reconstruction - Sprague to MontgomeryEuclid Ave. Preservation - Barker to E. City Limit
616263
Sullivan Rd. Improvements - Trent to Wellesley
64
1. 2020 Local Access Streets (Barker
Rd. Homes)
E
Project Type:Street Preservation
Project Description:
County sewer partnership. City to reimburse County for paving and stormwater costs.
Funding Status: Secured
Project Phase(s): Secured
Cost EstimateEstimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
2019
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 50
-
Right of Way (RW): 0
2020-2021
Construction (CN): 1,750
1,800
Total Cost:
3/!Tvmmjwbo!Se/!Csjehf!Efdl
Sftvsgbdjoh
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Bridge
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Resurface existing bridge deck on northbound bridge over UPRR tracks.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Secured
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Secured
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2019-2020
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 68
-
Right of Way (RW): 0
2021
Construction (CN): 270
338
Total Cost:
4/!Djuzxjef!Sfgmfdujwf!Qptu!Qbofmt
)3129*
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Safety
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Installation of reflective post panels to stop signs and speed limit signs on select streets.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Secured
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Secured
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2019
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 6
-
Right of Way (RW): 0
2020-2021
Construction (CN): 72
78
Total Cost:
5/!Djuzxjef!Sfgmfdujwf!Tjhobm
Cbdlqmbuft!)3129*
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Safety
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Installation of reflective backplate panels at select traffic signals.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Secured
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Secured
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2019
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 15
-
Right of Way (RW): 0
2020-2021
Construction (CN): 165
180
Total Cost:
6/!Qbsl!Se/!Tjefxbml
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
New sidewalk on west side from Sharp to Mission with potential marked crossing at Sharp or Cataldo.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Secured
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Secured
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2020
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 50
-
Right of Way (RW): 0
2021
Construction (CN): 683
733
Total Cost:
7/!Cbslfs!Se/!Jnqspwfnfout!.
Tqplbof!Sjwfs!up!Fvdmje
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Arterial Improvement
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Reconstruct and widen to 3-lane urban section to east leg of Euclid.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Secured
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Secured
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2019
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 165
2020
Right of Way (RW): 195
2020-2021
Construction (CN): 2,831
3,191
Total Cost:
8/!Cbmgpvs!Qbsl!Gspoubhf
Jnqspwfnfout
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Street Preservation
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Pavement preservation, widen paved shoulder, install curb and sidewalk on Herald, Main and Balfour.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2020
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100
-
Right of Way (RW): 0
2021
Construction (CN): 1,900
2,000
Total Cost:
9/!Nvmmbo!Se/!Qsftfswbujpo!.
Cspbexbz!up!Njttjpo
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Street Preservation
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Preservation project with conduit for future ITS infill, signals improvements at Mission.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2020
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 149
2020
Right of Way (RW): 160
2021
Construction (CN): 1,091
1,400
Total Cost:
:/!Bqqmfxbz!Cmwe/!Tupsnxbufs
Jnqspwfnfout
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Stormwater
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Improve stormwater facilities between University and Farr. Funded by Dept. of Ecology.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Secured
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Secured
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2020-2021
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100
2020-2021
Right of Way (RW): 100
2021
Construction (CN): 1,250
1,450
Total Cost:
21/!Fwfshsffo!Se!Qsftfswbujpo!.
Tqsbhvf!up!Njttjpo
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Street Preservation
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Signal and channelization upgrades to improve capacity and additional turn lane on southbound Pines.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2020-2021
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100
-
Right of Way (RW): 0
2021-2022
Construction (CN): 2,900
3,000
Total Cost:
22/!Tqsbhvf!Bwf/!0!Cbslfs!Se/
Joufstfdujpo!Jnqspwfnfou
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Intersection Improvement
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Provide new roundabout and with sidewalks and bike accomodations.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Partial
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Partial
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2019-2021
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 165
2021-2022
Right of Way (RW): 270
2022
Construction (CN): 1,835
2,270
Total Cost:
23/!Cbslfs!Se/!bu!Vojpo!Qbdjgjd
Dspttjoh
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Arterial Improvement
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Recnstruct and widen to 3-lane urban section at UPRR and E. Euclid Ave.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Secured
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Secured
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2020-2021
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 85
2021
Right of Way (RW): 50
2022
Construction (CN): 1,299
1,434
Total Cost:
24/!Qjoft!Se/!0!Njttjpo!Bwf/
Joufstfdujpo!Jnqspwfnfou
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Intersection Improvement
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Signal and channelization upgrades to improve capacity and additional turn lane on southbound Pines.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Secured
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Secured
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2020-2022
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 400
2021-2022
Right of Way (RW): 140
2022-2023
Construction (CN): 1,560
2,100
Total Cost:
25/!Tvmmjwbo!Se/!0!Xfmmftmfz!Bwf/
Joufstfdujpo!Jnqspw/
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Intersection Improvement
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Traffic signal and intersection improvement project, partnership with Spokane County.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Secured
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Secured
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2019-2021
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 225
2020-2021
Right of Way (RW): 185
2022
Construction (CN): 2,000
2,410
Total Cost:
26/!Cspbexbz!Bwf/!Qsftfswbujpo!.
Ibwbob!up!Gbodifs
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Street Preservation
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Pavement preservation, including stormwater improvements as necessary.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Secured
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Secured
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2019-2022
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100
-
Right of Way (RW): 0
2023
Construction (CN): 2,900
3,000
Total Cost:
27/!Cspbexbz!Bwf/!Qsftfswbujpo!.
Gbodifs!up!Qbsl
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Street Preservation
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Pavement Preservation Project
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2022
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 150
-
Right of Way (RW): 0
2023
Construction (CN): 1,850
2,000
Total Cost:
28/!Tqsbhvf!Bwf/!Qsftfswbujpo!.
Ibwbob!up!Gbodifs
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Street Preservation
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Pavement preservation project.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2022
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 150
-
Right of Way (RW): 0
2023
Construction (CN): 1,850
2,000
Total Cost:
29/!Qfeftusjbo!'!Cjdzdmf!Tbgfuz
Bobmztjt
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Safety
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Evaluate vehicle vs. pedestrian/bicycist crashes, as identified in the Local Road Safety Plan.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2022-2023
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 50
-
Right of Way (RW): 0
-
Construction (CN): 0
50
Total Cost:
2:/!Tvmmjwbo!Se/!Qsftfswbujpo!.
Tqsbhvf!up!9ui
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Street Preservation
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Pavement preservation with signal, sidewalks and stormwater improvements as necessary.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2021-2022
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100
2022
Right of Way (RW): 400
2023
Construction (CN): 2,900
3,400
Total Cost:
31/!Tvmmjwbo!Se/!Qsftfswbujpo!.!9ui!up
27ui
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Street Preservation
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Pavement preservation with signal, sidewalks and stormwater improvements as necessary.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2021-2022
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100
-
Right of Way (RW): 0
2024
Construction (CN): 1,300
1,400
Total Cost:
32/!Tqsbhvf!Bwf/!Tupsnxbufs
Jnqspwfnfout
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Stormwater
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Drywell retrofits between University and Park. Funded by Dept. of Ecology.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Secured
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Secured
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2021
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100
-
Right of Way (RW): 0
2022
Construction (CN): 1,900
2,000
Total Cost:
33/!Xjmcvs!Se/!Tjefxbml!.!Cppof!up
Njttjpo
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Install sidewalk from Boone to Mission on one side of road.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Secured
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Secured
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2021-2022
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 60
2021-2022
Right of Way (RW): 20
2022
Construction (CN): 564
644
Total Cost:
34/!Cbslfs!Se/!0!COTG!Hsbef
Tfqbsbujpo!Qspkfdu
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Bridge
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Construct Grade Separation at Barker/BNSF RR/Trent (SR290).
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Secured
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Secured
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2019
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 2,595
2020
Right of Way (RW): 2,545
2020-2023
Construction (CN): 21,030
26,170
Total Cost:
35/!Qbsl!Se/!0!Njttjpo!Bwf/
Joufstfdujpo!Jnqspwfnfou
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Intersection Improvement
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Improve channelization and signal operations.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2022-2023
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100
2023-2024
Right of Way (RW): 60
2024
Construction (CN): 1,340
1,500
Total Cost:
36/!9ui!Bwf/!Qsftfswbujpo!.!Qsphsftt
up!Tvmmjwbo
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Street Preservation
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Street preservation with potential sidewalk extension and partnership with Vera Water & Power.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2022-2023
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 50
-
Right of Way (RW): 0
2024
Construction (CN): 650
700
Total Cost:
37/!Njttjpo!Bwf/!Csjehf!Sftvsgbdjoh
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Bridge
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Surface preservation of concrete bridge deck over Evergreen Rd.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2022
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 25
-
Right of Way (RW): 0
2023
Construction (CN): 240
265
Total Cost:
38/!Tqplbof!Wbmmfz!.!Sjwfs!Mppq!Usbjm
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
5-mile shared-use path on north bank of Spokane River, including two pedestrian bridges.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2022-2024
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 1,000
-
Right of Way (RW): 0
-
Construction (CN): 15,000
16,000
Total Cost:
39/!Bshpoof!Se/!Dpodsfuf!Qbwf/!.
Joejbob!up!Npouhpnfsz
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Arterial Improvement
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Reconstruct with concrete and improve signal timing at Montgomery.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Secured
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Secured
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2020-2023
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 125
2020-2021
Right of Way (RW): 40
2021, 2024
Construction (CN): 5,000
5,165
Total Cost:
3:/!Qjoft!Se/!)TS38*!0!COTG!Hsbef
Tfqbsbujpo!Qspkfdu
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Bridge
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Construct Grade Separation at Pines/BNSF RR/Trent (SR290).
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Partial
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Partial
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2020-2023
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 2,494
2021-2022
Right of Way (RW): 4,700
2023-2025
Construction (CN): 21,806
29,000
Total Cost:
41/!Tvmmjwbo!Se/!0!TS!3:1!Joufsdibohf
Sfdpotusvdujpo
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Bridge
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Reconstruct interchange to improve safety and capacity.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2021-2024
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 2,650
2025-2026
Right of Way (RW): 1,380
2027-2028
Construction (CN): 22,600
26,630
Total Cost:
42/!Mpdbm!Bddftt!Tusffu
Jnqspwfnfout!.!%2/6N!Boovbmmz
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Street Preservation
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Funded by Street Wear Fee. Project type varies (surface treatments, grind/inlays, reconstruction).
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
Annually
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 600
Annually
Right of Way (RW): 0
Annually
Construction (CN): 8,400
9,000
Total Cost:
43/!Tusffu!Qsftfswbujpo!Qspkfdut!.
%4N!Boovbmmz
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Street Preservation
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Preservation projects, typically arterials or collectors, or used as matching funds for grants.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
Annually
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 500
Annually
Right of Way (RW): 0
Annually
Construction (CN): 17,500
18,000
Total Cost:
44/!Djuzxjef!Tbgfuz!Qspkfdut!.
Cjfoojbm
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Safety
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Projects are consistent with the City's Local Road Safety Plan. Awarded projects specified in TIP.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
Annually
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100
Annually
Right of Way (RW): 0
Annually
Construction (CN): 1,700
1,800
Total Cost:
45/!Njttjpo!Bwf/!Qsftfswbujpo!.
Nvmmbo!up!Vojwfstjuz
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Street Preservation
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Pavement preservation and possible widening project with stormwater improvements as necessary.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2022-2023
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100
2023-2024
Right of Way (RW): 150
2024
Construction (CN): 1,750
2,000
Total Cost:
46/!Tpvui!Cpxejti!Se/!.!Qibtfe
Dpssjeps!Jnqspwfnfout
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Arterial Improvement
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Reconstruct Sprague to Dishman Mica as a modified urban street with improvements at 16th/32nd.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2022-
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 1,000
2023-
Right of Way (RW): 500
2024-
Construction (CN): 11,500
13,000
Total Cost:
47/!Tvmmjwbo!Se!Qsftfswbujpo!.!27ui
Bwf/!up!Djuz!Mjnju
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Street Preservation
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Pavement preservation with signal, sidewalks and stormwater improvements as necessary.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2023-2024
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100
-
Right of Way (RW): 0
2024
Construction (CN): 2,100
2,200
Total Cost:
48/!Ejtinbo.Njdb!Se/!Qsft/!.!Tdibgfs
up!T/!Djuz!Mjnju
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Street Preservation
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Pavement preservation project.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2023
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 50
-
Right of Way (RW): 0
2024
Construction (CN): 1,250
1,300
Total Cost:
49/!Wfsb!Dsftu!,!Spdlz!Sjehf!Tusffu
Sfdpotusvdujpo
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Street Reconstruction Project
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Stormwater/road reconstruction in mulltiple areas: Kahuna Hills, Heather Park, Ridgemont Estates.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2023-2024
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 150
-
Right of Way (RW): 0
-
Construction (CN): 0
150
Total Cost:
4:/!9ui!Bwf/!0!Dbsobibo!Se/
Joufstfdujpo!Jnqspwfnfou
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Intersection Improvement
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Add intersection control (turn lanes, potential signal).
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2023
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 175
2024
Right of Way (RW): 250
2025
Construction (CN): 1,575
2,000
Total Cost:
51/!Cbslfs!Se/!Joufstfdujpo
Jnqspwfnfout!bu!5ui!'!9ui
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Intersection Improvement
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Provide new traffic signal or roundabout, per S. Barker Corridor Study.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2023-2024
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100
2025-2026
Right of Way (RW): 100
2026
Construction (CN): 3,300
3,500
Total Cost:
52/!Njsbcfbv!0!Nbotgjfme!Joufstfdujpo
Jnqspwfnfout
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Intersection Improvement
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Intersection capacity improvements.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2024
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 120
2025
Right of Way (RW): 100
2026
Construction (CN): 685
905
Total Cost:
53/!Cbslfs!Se/!Jnqspwfnfout!.
Bqqmfxbz!up!J.:1
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Arterial Improvement
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Reconstruct 5-lane urban section with alignment/channelization improvements at Appleway & Broadway.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2024
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 1,000
2025
Right of Way (RW): 2,000
2026
Construction (CN): 3,500
6,500
Total Cost:
54/!Gmpsb!Se/!Sfdpotusvdujpo!.!Fvdmje
up!Hbsmboe
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Arterial Improvement
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Reconstruct to an urban arterial section in partnership with Spokane County Sewer Extension
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2024
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100
2025
Right of Way (RW): 100
2026
Construction (CN): 2,000
2,200
Total Cost:
55/!Qbsl!Se/!Qsftfswbujpo!.!Tqsbhvf
up!Usfou
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Street Preservation
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Pavement preservation project with potential sidewalks at select locations.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2024
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 70
2025
Right of Way (RW): 30
2026
Construction (CN): 1,200
1,300
Total Cost:
56/!Gmpsb!Se/!0!TS!3:1!Joufstfdujpo
Jnqspwfnfou
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Intersection Improvement
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Provide new signal or roundabout, per adopted Planned Action Ordinance. Assume ROW & CN after 2026.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2024-2025
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100
2026-2027
Right of Way (RW): 100
2028
Construction (CN): 3,800
4,000
Total Cost:
57/!Dbubmep!Bwf/!Sfbmjhonfou!bu
Cbslfs!Se/
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Intersection Improvement
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Realign Cataldo Ave east of Barker to Intersect Boone Ave., per adopted Planned Action Ordinance.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2025-2026
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100
2026-2027
Right of Way (RW): 500
2028
Construction (CN): 1,400
2,000
Total Cost:
58/!43oe!Bwf/!Qsftfswbujpo!.!Qjoft!up
TS!38
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Street Preservation
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Pavement preservation project.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2025
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 60
-
Right of Way (RW): 0
2026
Construction (CN): 940
1,000
Total Cost:
59/!Xfmmftmfz!Bwf/!Qsftfswbujpo!.
Tvmmjwbo!up!Gmpsb
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Street Preservation
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Pavement preservation project.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2025
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 60
-
Right of Way (RW): 0
2026
Construction (CN): 940
1,000
Total Cost:
5:/!Cbslfs!Se/!Jnqspwfnfou!.
Bqqmfxbz!up!T/!Djuz!Mjnju
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Arterial Improvement
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Reconstruct 3-lane urban section from Appleway to Sprague and 2-lane urban section south of Sprague.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2025
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 200
2026-2027
Right of Way (RW): 100
2028-2029
Construction (CN): 3,200
3,500
Total Cost:
61/!Qjoft!Se!)TS.38*!0!27ui
Joufstfdujpo!Jnqspwfnfou
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Intersection Improvement
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Add traffic control at five-leg intersecton.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Partial
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Partial
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2025-2026
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 200
2026-2027
Right of Way (RW): 100
2028
Construction (CN): 4,700
5,000
Total Cost:
62/!Cbslfs!Se/!.!Njttjpo!up!Joufstubuf
:1
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Arterial Improvement
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Reconstruct to 5-lane urban section. Improvements at Boone intersection are identified separately.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2025
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 200
2026
Right of Way (RW): 500
2027
Construction (CN): 2,300
3,000
Total Cost:
63/!9ui!Bwf/!Qsftfswbujpo!.!Ibwbob!up
Qbsl
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Arterial Improvement
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Pavement preservation project with select locations of sidewalk and road widening.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2026
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 60
2027
Right of Way (RW): 100
2028
Construction (CN): 1,840
2,000
Total Cost:
64/!Bqqmfxbz!Usbjm!.!Gbss!up!Ejtinbo
Njdb
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Extend Shared Use pathway to Dishman Mica with north connections to City Hall and Balfour Park.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2026-2027
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100
2028-2029
Right of Way (RW): 100
2029-2030
Construction (CN): 1,000
1,200
Total Cost:
65/!Bshpoof!Se/!'!J.:1!Joufsdibohf
Csjehf!Xjefojoh
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Bridge
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Widen Argonne Road bridge to 3 lanes southbound and improve sidewalks.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2026-2027
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 500
-
Right of Way (RW): 0
2028-2029
Construction (CN): 14,500
15,000
Total Cost:
66/!9ui!Bwf/!0!Qbsl!Se/!Joufstfdujpo
Jnqspwfnfou
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Intersection Improvement
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Provide new traffic signal or roundabout.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2026-2027
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100
2027-2028
Right of Way (RW): 300
2028
Construction (CN): 2,600
3,000
Total Cost:
67/!Cbslfs!Se/!0!Cppof!Bwf/
Joufstfdujpo!Jnqspwfnfou
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Intersection Improvement
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Provide new signal or roundabout, per adopted Planned Action Ordinance. Assume ROW & CN after 2025.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2027-2028
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100
2028-2029
Right of Way (RW): 200
2030
Construction (CN): 2,500
2,800
Total Cost:
68/!Cspbexbz!Bwf/!Jnqspwfnfout!.
Gmpsb!up!Cbslfs
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Arterial Improvement
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Extend 3-lane urban section to Barker Rd and realign connection east of Barker.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2027-2028
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100
2028
Right of Way (RW): 500
2029
Construction (CN): 4,400
5,000
Total Cost:
69/!5ui!Bwf/!0!Qjoft!Se/!)TS!38*
Joufstfdujpo!Jnqspw/
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Intersection Improvement
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Install new intersection control. Price assumes new signal and channelization.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2027
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100
2028
Right of Way (RW): 200
2029
Construction (CN): 700
1,000
Total Cost:
6:/!Tvmmjwbo!Se/!0!Ljfsobo!Bwf/
Joufstfdujpo!Jnqspw/
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Intersection Improvement
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Improve channelization and signal operations and reconstruct intersection with concrete.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2027-2028
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100
2028-2029
Right of Way (RW): 100
2029
Construction (CN): 1,800
2,000
Total Cost:
71/!Tvmmjwbo!Se/!0!Nbsjfuub!!Bwf/
Joufstfdujpo!Jnqspw/
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Intersection Improvement
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Improve channelization and signal operations and reconstruct intersection with concrete.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2027-2028
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100
2028-2029
Right of Way (RW): 100
2029
Construction (CN): 1,800
2,000
Total Cost:
72/!Cppof!Bwf/!Sfdpotusvdujpo!.
Gmpsb!up!Cbslfs
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Street Reconstruction Project
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Reconstruct corridor to city standards.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2027-2028
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 150
2029-2030
Right of Way (RW): 350
2031
Construction (CN): 3,500
4,000
Total Cost:
73/!Gmpsb!Se/!Sfdpotusvdujpo!.
Tqsbhvf!up!Npouhpnfsz
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Arterial Improvement
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Reconstruct to city standards, including a shared-use path connecting Appleway & Centennial Trails.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2027-2028
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 150
2029-2030
Right of Way (RW): 250
2031
Construction (CN): 3,600
4,000
Total Cost:
74/!Fvdmje!Bwf/!Qsftfswbujpo!.!Cbslfs
up!F/!Djuz!Mjnju
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Street Preservation
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Pavement preservation project. City may elect to improve road section to meet City standards.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2027
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 50
-
Right of Way (RW): 0
2028
Construction (CN): 450
500
Total Cost:
75/!Tvmmjwbo!Se/!Jnqspwfnfout!.
Usfou!up!Xfmmftmfz
E
Qspkfdu!Uzqf;Arterial Improvement
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo;
Widen for center turn lane, improved access management, lighting, and addition of shared-use path.
Gvoejoh!Tubuvt;!Planned
Qspkfdu!Qibtf)t*;!Planned
Dptu!FtujnbufFtujnbufe!Qspkfdu
)jo!%2-111*!Tdifevmf
2027-2028
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 200
2028-2029
Right of Way (RW): 300
2030
Construction (CN): 2,500
3,000
Total Cost:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date:May 18, 2021Department Director Approval
Check all that apply:consent old business new business public hearing
informationadmin. reportpending legislation executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Housing Action Plan (HAP)
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:RCW 36.70A.600
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:September 24, 2019:City Council authorized staff to
complete the urban density grant application for the development of a HAP.March 2, 2021: Admin report
update on the Housing Action Plan
BACKGROUND:A HAP defines strategies and implementing actions that promote greater housing
diversity and affordability for residents of all income levels. The HAP includes four main components: a
Housing Needs Assessment, a review of policies and regulations affecting housing development, strategies
to increase housing based on needs, and an implementation plan.
The City applied for and received a $100,000 grant from the Department of Commerce (DOC) to partially
fund the development ofa HAP. The City used the grant dollars to contract with Maul, Foster, and Alongi
(MFA) to assist in the completion of the HAP.MFA, their sub-consultant ECONorthwest, and City staff
have completed the HAP.
The HAP provides recommended policies and strategies to meet the housing needs within theCity. The
recommendations in the HAP were informed by public engagement, data analysis, and review of existing
planning documents, and are intended to be options for the City to consider for future implementation. The
guidance provided will be used as a basis for future conversations with staff, stakeholders, renters,
homeowners, advocates, developers and many others to determine which strategies should be used to ensure
the City has the ability to provide the necessary housing for our community.
On March 2, 2021, staff provided an update to City Council that included an overview of the HAP and the
anticipated adoption process and timeline.
On March 12, 2021, the City staff determined that the adoption of the HAP did not have a probable
significant adverse impacton the environment and issued a Determination of Non-Significance.
On March 25, 2021, staff provided an overview of the proposed HAPto the Planning Commission.
On April 8, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed HAP. After receiving
public testimony, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and deliberated on the HAP. After
reviewing and deliberating on the HAP, the Planning Commission moved and voted 7-0 to forward the
HAP to City Council with a recommendation of approval.
Tonight, staff will present an overview of the draft HAP for the purpose of discussion with the City Council.
Staff will return on June 1, 2021for a motion consideration for Council to consider adoption ofthe HAP
by resolution.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS:Noneat this time.
OPTIONS:Discussion
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:No action at this time
STAFF CONTACT:Chaz Bates, AICP, Senior Planner
____________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:1.Presentation; 2. PC Findings; 3. Draft Resolution;4. May 12, 2021 Letter from
Department of Commerce; 5.White Binder (included separately, which containsPlanning Commission
materials and draft HAP)
1 of 1
History Refresher
Housing Needs Assessment (HNA)
family detached
-
2/3 of stock single
—
City’s Housing Needs Assessment
Housing Policy and Regulation Review
City’s Housing Strategies & Actions
Housing Implementation Plan
City’s Housing Implementation Plan
DRAFT
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 21-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE HOUSING ACTION PLANFOR THE CITY OF SPOKANE
VALLEY, AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO.
WHEREAS,the Growth Management Act allows cities to adopt a Housing Action Plan (HAP) as
described in RCW 36.70A.600(2); and
WHEREAS, the goal of a HAP is to encourage the construction of additional affordable and market
rate housing in a greater variety of housing types at prices that are accessible to a variety of incomes; and
WHEREAS, the City applied for and received grant fundingfrom the Washington State
Department of Commerce (Commerce)to develop and adopt a HAP and used the grant funds to contract
with Maul, Foster, and Alongi (MFA) to complete the HAP; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW 43.21C (SEPA), and Title 21
Spokane Valley MunicipalCode (SVMC), the City issued a Determination ofNon-Significance (DNS) for
the HAP on March 12, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the requirements of SEPA and Title 21 SVMC have been fulfilled; and
WHEREAS, on March 12 and 19, 2021, notice of thePlanning Commissionpublic hearing for the
HAP was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald; and
WHEREAS, on March 25, 2021, the City issued a press release on the availability of the HAP, and
sent direct email to the HAP distribution list and stakeholders; and
WHEREAS, prior to the Planning Commission’s public hearing, the City created a rotating banner
on the City’s website that linked to the HAP project page, and published social media posts on Facebook,
Twitter and Instagram about the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on April 8, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received evidence,
information and public testimony followed by deliberations; and
WHEREAS, on April 8, 2021, after reviewing and deliberating on the HAP, the Planning
Commission moved and voted 7-0 to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of the HAP;
and
WHEREAS, on April 22, 2021, the Planning Commission approved findings and
recommendations, which are incorporated herein by reference;and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the grant agreement with Commerce and RCW 36.70A.600(2), the HAP
is required to include the following components:
a. A summary of community engagement: The development of the HAP and its strategies included
a robust citizen engagement process, which issummarized inAppendix D;
Resolution 21-XXXAdopting the 2021 Housing Action Plan Page 1of 2
DRAFT
b. Housing needs assessment: The housing needs assessment included in the HAP as Appendix A
identifies the City’s housingneeds for all income segmentswithdetailed information about the
City’s demographics,includingpopulation and employment trends;
c. Recommended policy and code changes: Section 3of the HAP includespolicy and code changes.
Section 3 and Appendix C of the HAP include an analysis of the City’s housing element and
associated policies in meeting planned housing within the City;
d. Housing strategies: Sections3 and 4 of the HAP identify strategies toincrease the supply and
variety of housing types and ways tominimize and reduce displacement of low-income residents;
and
e. Implementation plan: Section 4 of the HAP includes an overview of the strategiesincluding
proposed timing and potential needed resourcesfor implementation; and
WHEREAS, the HAP is a planning documentand does not amend the City’s Comprehensive Plan
or development regulations; and
WHEREAS, theimplementation of anyrecommended strategies in the HAPwill undergo itsown
process for review, adoption, and engagement; and
WHEREAS, consistent with the grant agreement with Washington State Department of Commerce,
the HAP is required to be formally adopted by the City.
NOW THEREFORE,be is resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane
County, Washington as follows:
SECTION 1.Findings.The City Council hereby adoptsand incorporates by reference the recitals above
as findings for the adoption of the Housing Action Plan.The City Council hereby finds that the HAP
complies with all state and local requirements, including the grant with Commerce and RCW
36.70A.600(2).
SECTION 2. Adoption. The City Council hereby adoptsthe Housing Action Plan, attached hereto and
made a part hereof.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption.
st
Adopted this 1day of June 2021.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
ATTEST:
_________________________________ Ben Wick, Mayor
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Office of the City Attorney
Resolution 21-XXXAdopting the 2021 Housing Action Plan Page 2of 2
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
1011 Plum Street SE PO Box 42525 Olympia, Washington 98504-2525 (360) 725-4000
www.commerce.wa.gov
May 12, 2021
Spokane Valley City Council
c/o Chaz Bates, Senior Planner
City of Spokane Valley
10210 E. Sprague Avenue
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Sent Via Electronic Mail
RE: Draft Housing Action Plan
Dear council members:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your proposed draft housing action plan (HAP). We
appreciate your coordination with our agency as you work to fulfill the HB 1923 grant contract to
develop this plan.
Spokane Valley has done an excellent job at completing all of the required elements of a HAP
outlined in RCW 36.70A.600(2). The HAP if implemented as designed will help the city meet its
housing needs by accommodating the future population demand with a greater diversity of housing
options and greater affordability, while addressing displacement and preserving affordable housing.
We especially like the following:
The housing policy and code review, which notes the actions taken by the city and evaluates
progress towards the housing goals. This provides a strong basis for the HAP strategy
recommendations.
The displacement analysis, which will allow the city to carefully evaluate and implement
specific development regulation and policy changes in the future with an understanding for
where they may have impacts.
The development feasibility analysis provides an evaluation of possible development
scenarios and a strong foundation and knowledge base for the recommendations.
The breadth of housing strategy recommendations that not only address the goals and
objectives of the HAP, including displacement, but also includes next steps for each strategy.
The implementation plan that identifies the action needed, partnerships, staff time and the
proposed timing of each strategy which will allow the city to program and plan the next steps
to implement the recommendations.
Spokane Valley City Council
May 12, 2021
Page 2
As the city looks to adoption and implementation of this strong set of housing strategies, we
recommend the city make a plan for how you want to monitor the goals within the HAP. The
potential indicators are a great start, but a monitoring plan would allow the city to measure its
progress and evaluate which changes have been effective at meeting the goals, and which might
need modifications to meet the intended purpose.
Congratulations to the staff for the great work the draft housing action plan represents. If you have
any questions or need technical assistance, please feel free to contact me at
benjamin.serr@commerce.wa.gov or (509) 724-1699. We extend our continued support to the City of
Spokane Valley as you review this draft plan for adoption as intended direction for housing policy.
Sincerely,
Benjamin A. Serr
Eastern Washington Regional Manager
Growth Management Services
cc: Chaz Bates, Senior Planner, City of Spokane Valley
Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager, City of Spokane Valley
David Andersen, AICP, Managing Director, Growth Management Services
Steve Roberge, Deputy Managing Director, Growth Management Services
Anne Fritzel, AICP, Senior Housing Planner, Growth Management Services
Laura Hodgson, Associate Housing Planner, Growth Management Services
City of Spokane Valley
Housing Action Plan Index
Index Tab No. Summary of Amendment
Request for Planning Commission Action; Meeting Minutes and Presentation
1
(Public Hearing)
2 Draft Housing Action Plan
3 Section 2 – Draft Housing Action Plan
4 Section 3 – Draft Housing Action Plan
5 Section 4 – Draft Housing Action Plan
6 A-Appendices –Draft Housing Action Plan
7 B Appendices – Draft Housing Action Plan
8 C Appendices –Draft Housing Action Plan
9 D Appendices –Draft Housing Action Plan
10 E Appendices – Draft Housing Action Plan
11 F Appendices – Draft Housing Action Plan
12 G Appendices – Draft Housing Action Plan
13 Public Comments
UBC$2
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Action
Meeting Date: March 25, 2021
Item: Check all that apply old business new business public hearing
information study session pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Housing Action Plan (HAP)
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.600
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION: None
BACKGROUND: During the 2019 legislative session, E2SHB 1923 was passed which encouraged cities
to address their ability to provide housing, and especially more affordable housing, by increasing urban
residential capacity. Cities could accomplish these objectives by either adopting a set of zoning amendments
or by adopting a HAP. In September of 2019, the City chose to develop a HAP to inform and provide
guidance on housing.
A HAP defines strategies and implementing actions that promote greater housing diversity and affordability
for residents of all income levels. The HAP includes four main components: a Housing Needs Assessment,
a review of policies and regulations affecting housing development, strategies to increase housing based on
needs, and an implementation plan.
To assist with the implementation of E2SHB 1923 the Department of Commerce (DOC) offered grants up
to $100,000 to develop and adopt a HAP. In November of 2019 the City was awarded the full grant amount,
and in April 2020 entered into a contract with DOC, and in May 2020, the City entered into a contract with
Maul, Foster, and Alongi (MFA) to complete the HAP.
MFA and their sub-consultant ECONorthwest have completed the HAP. This document is now ready for
Planning Commission review. The purpose of the document is to assist the City in accommodating
additional housing through 2037. This planning period is defined by the Growth Management Act and
cities are required to evaluate their success in attaining planned housing types and units throughout this
timeframe. The HAP identifies strategies to promote housing development to assist the City in meeting the
projected housing needs. The recommendations in the HAP are meant to encourage more housing for
people of all income levels.
The HAP provides policies and strategies that could be used to meet the housing needs within the City. The
recommendations in the HAP were informed by public engagement, data analysis, review of existing
planning documents and staff input. These recommendations are intended to be options for the City to
consider for future implementation. The guidance provided in the HAP will be used as a basis for future
conversations with staff, stakeholders, renters, homeowners, advocates, developers and many others to
determine which strategies should be used to ensure the City has the ability to provide the necessary housing
for our community.
Tonight, staff will provide an overview of the HAP and the anticipated adoption process and timeline.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action recommended at this time.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Presentation
2. Draft Housing Action Plan and Appendices (white binder. Please keep the binder for the
duration of the recommendation process)
RPCA Study Session for Housing Action Plan Page 1 of 1
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Action
Meeting Date: April 8, 2021
Item: Check all that apply old business new business public hearing
information study session pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Housing Action Plan (HAP)
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.600
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION: Study Session, March 25, 2021
BACKGROUND: During the 2019 legislative session, E2SHB 1923 was passed which encouraged cities
to address their ability to provide housing, and especially more affordable housing, by increasing urban
residential capacity. In September of 2019, the City chose to develop a HAP to inform and provide guidance
on housing.
A HAP defines strategies and implementing actions that promote greater housing diversity and affordability
for residents of all income levels. The HAP includes four main components: a Housing Needs Assessment,
a review of policies and regulations affecting housing development, strategies to increase housing based on
needs, and an implementation plan.
To assist with the implementation of E2SHB 1923 the Department of Commerce (DOC) offered grants up
to $100,000 to develop and adopt a HAP. In November of 2019 the City was awarded the full grant amount,
and in April 2020 entered into a contract with DOC, and in May 2020, the City entered into a contract with
Maul, Foster, and Alongi (MFA) to complete the HAP.
MFA and their sub-consultant ECONorthwest have completed the HAP. The purpose of the document is
to assist the City in accommodating additional housing through 2037. This planning period is defined by
the Growth Management Act and cities are required to evaluate their success in attaining planned housing
types and units throughout this timeframe. The HAP identifies strategies to promote housing development
to assist the City in meeting the projected housing needs. The recommendations in the HAP are meant to
encourage more housing for people of all income levels.
The HAP provides policies and strategies that could be used to meet the housing needs within the City. The
recommendations in the HAP were informed by public engagement, data analysis, review of existing
planning documents and staff input. These recommendations are intended to be options for the City to
consider for future implementation. The guidance provided in the HAP will be used as a basis for future
conversations with staff, stakeholders, renters, homeowners, advocates, developers and many others to
determine which strategies should be used to ensure the City has the ability to provide the necessary housing
for our community.
On March 12, 2021, the City has determined that the adoption of the HAP did do not have a probable
significant adverse impacts on the environment and issued a Determination of Non-Significance. On March
25, 2021, staff provided an overview of the proposed HAP. Tonight, the Planning Commission will hold a
public hearing for the purpose of taking public testimony on the HAP.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move that the Planning Commission approve and forward
to City Council a recommendation of approval of the Housing Action Plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Presentation
2. Please bring your white binder with the draft HAP and appendices.
RPCA Study Session for 2021 Shoreline Master Program Update Page 1 of 1
$100,000 grant to complete the work
History Refresher
Type, age, and amountFor all income levels
——
Housing Needs Assessment (HNA)
20,910
-
21,144
-
Millennials doubled Seniors continued growth Growth in sectors below 100% AMI 6,660 new units by 2037
————
City’s Housing Needs Assessment
Evaluation of programs
Aligned with identified needsAligned with community vision and engagementIdentify regulatory barriers
Housing Policy and Regulation Review
-
rate
-
allow
missing
in zones that
Preserve affordable housing and mitigate displacement.Increase both marketand affordable housing supply, multifamily and middle housingIncrease housing options and housing choice.
City’s Housing Strategies & Actions
Identify implementation strategies to achieve housing goals, include:
Housing Implementation Plan
Identify steps to achieve strategies, including:Monitoring program
City’s Housing Implementation Plan
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Action
Meeting Date: April 22, 2021
Item: Check all that apply old business new business public hearing
information study session pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Housing Action Plan (HAP)
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.600
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION: Study Session, March 25, 2021, Public Hearing, April 8, 2021
BACKGROUND: A HAP defines strategies and implementing actions that promote greater housing
diversity and affordability for residents of all income levels. The HAP includes four main components: a
Housing Needs Assessment, a review of policies and regulations affecting housing development, strategies
to increase housing based on needs, and an implementation plan.
To assist with the implementation of E2SHB 1923 the Department of Commerce (DOC) offered grants up
to $100,000 to develop and adopt a HAP. On September 24, 2019, the City Council authorized staff to
apply for a grant from DOC to develop and adopt a HAP. In November of 2019 the City was awarded the
full grant amount, and in April 2020 entered into a contract with DOC, and in May 2020, the City entered
into a contract with Maul, Foster, and Alongi (MFA) to complete the HAP.
MFA and their sub-consultant ECONorthwest have completed the HAP. The purpose of the document is
to assist the City in accommodating additional housing through 2037. This planning period is defined by
the Growth Management Act and cities are required to evaluate their success in attaining planned housing
types and units throughout this timeframe. The HAP identifies strategies to promote housing development
to assist the City in meeting the projected housing needs. The recommendations in the HAP are meant to
encourage more housing for people of all income levels.
The HAP provides policies and strategies that could be used to meet the housing needs within the City. The
recommendations in the HAP were informed by public engagement, data analysis, review of existing
planning documents and staff input. These recommendations are intended to be options for the City to
consider for future implementation. The guidance provided in the HAP will be used as a basis for future
conversations with staff, stakeholders, renters, homeowners, advocates, developers and many others to
determine which strategies should be used to ensure the City has the ability to provide the necessary housing
for our community.
On March 12, 2021, the City determined that the adoption of the HAP did not have a probable significant
adverse impact on the environment and issued a Determination of Non-Significance. On March 25, 2021,
staff provided an overview of the proposed HAP.
On April 8, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed HAP. After receiving
public testimony, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and deliberated on the HAP. After
reviewing and deliberating on the HAP, the Planning Commission moved and voted 7-0 to forward the
HAP to City Council with a recommendation of approval.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move that the Planning Commission adopt the findings
and recommendations and forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of the Housing Action
Plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Findings and Recommendations for the Proposed Housing Action Plan
2. Public Comment - Spokane Regional Housing Needs Summit, submitted at Public Hearing
RPCA Findings and Recommendations for HAP Page 1 of 1
MeetingMinutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers –City Hall
April 22, 2021
I.Planning Commission Vice-Chair Bob McKinley called the meeting to order at 6:00p.m.
The meeting was held remotely via ZOOM meeting.
II.Administrative Assistant Taylor Dillard took roll and the following members and staff were
present:
Fred BeaulacErik Lamb, City Attorney
Karl GranrathJenny Nickerson, Building Official
Walt HanekeChaz Bates, Senior Planner
Bob McKinley, absentTaylor Dillard, Administrative Assistant
Nancy Miller
Paul Rieckers
Sherri Robinson
There was a consensus from the Planning Commission to excuse Chairman McKinley
from the meeting.
III.AGENDA:CommissionerBeaulac moved to approve the April 22, 2021meetingagenda as
presented.There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against
and the motion passed.
IV.MINUTES: Commissioner Haneke moved to approve the April 8, 2021 minutes as
presented.There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was sixin favor, zero against
and the motion passed.
V.COMMISSION REPORTS:There were no Planning Commission reports.
VI.ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT:Building Official Jenny Nickerson reminded the Planning
Commission of a webinar to be held on Saturday April 24, 2021 regarding Roberts Rules Of
Order (Mastering the Meeting).
VII.PUBLIC COMMENT:There was no public comment.
VIII.COMMISSION BUSINESS:
a.Findings Of Fact: Housing Action Plan
Senior Planner Chaz Bates presented the Findings of Fact for the Housing Action Plan
(HAP) for approval. He stated that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on
the proposed HAP at the April 8, 2021 meeting. After receiving public testimony, the
Planning Commission moved and voted 7-0 to forward the HAP to City Council with a
1
04-22-2021Planning Commission MinutesPage 2of 2
recommendation of approval. He explained that the approval of the Findings of Fact will
formalize the recommendations that were made at thepublic hearing.
Commissioner Haneke moved to approve the Planning Commission Findings of Fact for
the Housing Action Plan as presented.There was no discussion. The vote on the motion
was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed.
IX.GOOD OF THE ORDER:Commissioner Miller commented that legislation regarding
condominiums is headed to the Governor’s office for approval.
X.ADJOURNMENT:CommissionerHanekemoved to adjourn the meeting at6:11p.m.
There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against, and the
motion passed.
_________________________________________________________________
Bob McKinley, ChairDate signed
____________________________________
Marianne Lemons,Secretary
2
UBC$3
DRAFT
HOUSING ACTION PLAN
Prepared for
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Prepared by
Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc.
2815 2nd Avenue, Suite 540, Seattle, WA 98121
DRAFT
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc., in collaboration with ECONorthwest, prepared this report for City
of Spokane Valley. We are grateful to the numerous staff, elected officials, and community
members who participated in this process and provided feedback to shape the plan.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL
Councilmember Rod Higgins -(position 1)
Councilmember Brandi Peetz – (position 2) -Deputy Mayor
Councilmember Arne Woodard – (position 3)
Councilmember Ben Wick – (position 4) - Mayor
Councilmember Pam Haley – (position 5)
Councilmember Tim Hattenburg – (position 6)
Councilmember Linda Thompson – (position 7)
CONSULTANT TEAM
Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc
ECONorthwest
SPOKANE VALLEY COMMUNITY MEMBERS (ALPHABETICAL ORDER)
Lanzce Douglas, Douglas Properties
Deb Elzinga, Community Frameworks
Jim Frank, Greenstone
Michelle Girardot, Habitat for Humanity
Rob Higgins, Spokane Association of REALTORS
Julie Honekamp, SNAP WA
Ray Kimball, Whipple Engineering
Jonathan Mallahan, Catholic Charities
Jennyfer Mesa, Latinos en Spokane
Dave Roberts, Spokane Housing Ventures
Ben Stuckart, Spokane Low Income Housing Consortium
Todd Walton, Inland Development
Darin Watkins, Spokane Association of REALTORS
Joel White Spokane, Home Builders Association
PAGE II
DRAFT
CONTENTS
1 PURPOSE 1
1.1 OVERVIEW 1
1.2 ORGANIZATION 2
2 SUPPORTING DATA AND ANALYSIS 3
2.1 SUMMARY OF HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 3
2.2 SUMMARY OF POLICY AND REGULATORY ASSESSMENT 15
2.3SUMMARY OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT18
2.4 DISPLACEMENT RISK ANALYSIS 23
2.5 DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS 25
3 HOUSING STRATEGY RECOMMENDATIONS 29
3.1SUMMARY OF HOUSING STRATEGY RECOMMENDATIONS30
3.2 ASSESSMENT OF HOUSING STRATEGY RECOMMENDATIONS 35
4 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 54
4.1 DEVELOP AND ASSIGN WORK PROGRAMS 54
4.2 USE TO INFORM HOUSING POLICY AND PLANNING PROJECTS 62
4.3 MONITOR IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS 62
APPENDIX A
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX B
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT METHODS AND DATA SOURCES
APPENDIX C
HOUSING POLICY FRAMEWORK
APPENDIX D
SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
APPENDIX E
DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY AND MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDING SOURCES
APPENDIX G
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AND TINY HOME POLICY ANALYSIS
PAGE III
DRAFT
1 PURPOSE
1.1 Overview
The City of Spokane Valley’s (City) Housing Action Plan (HAP) defines strategies and implementing
actions that promote greater housing diversity, affordability, and access to opportunity for residents
of all income levels. This HAP is meant to implement a voluntary program of the Growth
Management Act and fulfill a State of Washington Department of Commerce grant that Spokane
Valley received through House Bill 1923 which aims to:
Quantify existing and projected housing needs for all income levelswith documentation
of housing and household characteristics.
Develop strategies to increase the supply of housing, and the variety of housing types,
needed to serve the housing needs identified above.
Analyze population and employment trends, with documentation of projections.
Consider strategies to minimize low-income residents’ displacement resulting from
redevelopment.
Review and evaluate the current housing element adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.070,
including an evaluation of success in attaining planned housing types and units,
achievement of goals and policies, and implementation of the schedule of programs and
actions.
Provide for participation and input from community members, community groups, local
builders, local realtors, nonprofit housing advocates, and local religious groups.
Include a schedule of programs and actions to implement the recommendations of this
HAP.
The purpose of this HAP is to:
Provide an overview of the housing landscape and planning environment.
Help the City plan for additional housing through 2037 by providing key data and analysis
on the current housing inventory and future housing need in Spokane Valley.
Highlight current City development regulations and incentives that are effective.
Identify strategies that consider emerging development issues to promote housing
development that will help meet Spokane Valley’s projected housing needs.
Recommend actions that will encourage more housing development at all income levels
to accommodate future and current residents.
PAGE 1
DRAFT
To develop this HAP, the City assessed housing needs, reviewed housing policies, and engaged the
public. The results have led to three key housing objectives that are addressed in this HAP:
Preserve affordable housing and prevent or mitigate displacement.
Increase market-rate and affordable housing supply throughout Spokane Valley, but focus
on areas that support multifamily and “missing-middle” housing types.
Increase housing options and housing choice.
1.2 Organization
This HAPis organized as follows:
Supporting Data and Analysis offers background on the housing needs analysis, policy
and regulatory review, and public engagement.
Housing Recommendations offers 13 policy and program recommendations as
Spokane Valley works toward increasing housing supply through 2037.
Implementation Plan that provides Spokane Valley with near-term actions for City
Councilmembers to consider.
Appendices provide technical appendices that support this HAP, including the full public
engagement plan, data, methods for key parts of the analysis, affordable housing
information, and the policy review.
PAGE 2
UBC$4
DRAFT
2 SUPPORTING DATA AND ANALYSIS
Incorporated in 2003, the City is the second most populated city in Spokane County, behind the City
of Spokane. Spokane Valley can be described as an auto-oriented suburban community with
commercial areas and improving mass transit service. Spokane Valley’s population is currently 97,490
(Washington Office of Financial Management \[OFM\], 2020) and has increased by 25,246 people since
2003, translating to a 17.5 percent increase, which equates to an average of approximately one percent
of growth per year. Spokane Valley is projected to add 14,103 more residents between 2018 and 2037
(OFM, 2020).
The housing market in Spokane Valley has not kept pace with this increased demand brought on by
new residents (ECONorthwest, 2020). This underproduction is one important factor in rising rents
and home prices. To accommodate new residents, developers in Spokane Valley will need to produce
housing at a modestly faster rate than has been done over the past ten years. The new unit production
will also have to accommodate households across the income spectrum.
The confluence of population growth with a need for more housing spurs many questions: What
income and demographic characteristics will future households have? Where will households live and
in what housing types? The answers to these questions and the ability of future households to meet
their housing needs depend on decisions and policy choices that the City makes today.
In response to the housing challenges facing many of its residents, the City has worked locally and
regionally to analyze data on the housing needs of current and future residents and to develop
strategies that can support housing at a variety of price points to meet these needs. Housing markets
function at a regional scale so it can be challenging for individual jurisdictions to adequately address
this issue on its own. Partnerships and coordination throughout the broader county/region will be
needed to successfully implement this HAP.
2.1 Summary of Housing Needs Assessment
The housing needs assessment fact packet (Appendix A) synthesizes background information on the
current housing inventory, demographics, and employment trends in Spokane Valley. This assessment
helps inform the development of potential strategies. In particular, the housing needs assessment
focuses on housing affordability issues and identifies the types of housing that the City should plan
for in the future. The data source for the following summary is predominantly 2018 and 2019 data
from the OFM, with additional data fromthe U.S. Census Bureau’s Public Use Micro Sample (PUMS)
and American Community Survey (ACS). The methods and sources used to develop the housing needs
assessment fact packet and the information below are found in Appendix B.
PAGE 3
DRAFT
2.1.1 Spokane Valley Employment Trends
EMPLOYMENT IN SPOKANE VALLEY CONTINUES TO GROW.
The City’s total employment grew from 46,205 jobs in 2010 to 51,305 jobs in 2017, an increase of
5,100 jobs (11 percent change). The top three largest industry sectors, in terms of total employment,
were: (1) Retail Trade, with 10,032 employees; (2) Manufacturing, with 6,686 employees; and (3)
Health Care and Social Services, with 6,273 employees. Combined, these industry sectors represent 45
percent of Spokane Valley’s total employment base.
The sectors with the greatest employment growth from 2010 to 2017 were: (1) Educational Services,
with 1,978 new jobs or a 120 percent increase; (2) Construction, with 978 new jobs or a 45 percent
increase, and (3) Wholesale Trade, with 684 new jobs or a 23 percent increase. Combined, these three
industries represent a gain of around 3,640 employees.
Median salaries in 2018 also varied by industry. At opposite ends of the wage spectrum are the
Accommodations and Food Services industry (average wage: $28,307 per year) and the Utilities sector
(average wage: $69,936 per year). The Manufacturing sector, which makes up 13 percent of the
1
workforce, averages an annual wage of $46,683 per year.
Figure 1 presents a travel shed map showing access to employment within a 45-minute drive and
45-minute transit trip. There are 260,178 jobs in the 45-minute drive shed from Spokane Valley and
63,115 jobs in the 45-minute transit shed. This indicates that a large majority of jobs are more
accessible by driving an automobile rather than taking public transit.
1
These are approximate estimates based on analysis of the following data s ources: US Census LODES database, 2017 and census block
geometries, 2010; ECONorthwest.
PAGE 4
DRAFT
Figure 1. Travel Shed Map, Access to Employment
Sources: US Census LODES database, 2017 and census block geometries, 2010; and Spokane Transit Authority database. ECONorthwest
Calculations
2.1.2 Who lives in Spokane Valley?
SPOKANE VALLEY IS GAINING NEW RESIDENTS.
Between 2010 and 2020, Spokane Valley’s population grew 8.6 percent, from 89,755 people to 97,490,
a gain of 7,735 new residents. For comparison, the City of Spokane grew by 7 percent or by 14,684
people during the same period. These two cities combined account for 43.6 percent of Spokane
County’s population growth of 51,379 people during this time (OFM, 2020). The housing needs
assessment showed Spokane Valley’s population between 2010 and 2018 grew by 6,055 people (OFM,
2020).
Housing needs vary for different age groups and change over a person’s lifetime. Consequently, it is
important to track shifts among the share of different age groups to better comprehend how housing
needs change as community demographics fluctuate. Between 2012 and 2018Spokane Valley’s
millennial population (25-34 years) almost doubled, growing substantially from 10 percent to 15
percent of the population total from 12,148 to 21,144 persons (U.S. Census ACS PUMS, 2012, 2018).
Another growing sector is the senior population which includes persons over 65 years old. During
2012-2018, seniors grew from 13 percent to 15 percent of the total population settling at an estimated
total of 20,910 persons, a total similar to the millennial population sector.
PAGE 5
DRAFT
SPOKANE VALLEY IS BECOMING SLIGHTLY MORE DIVERSE.
Spokane Valley’s population has become slightly more diverse, as illustrated in Figure 2. While all race
and ethnicity categories increased in total share of population, the share of residents who are Black,
indigenous, and persons of color increased more than white households in this period; most Spokane
2
Valley residents (83 percent) identify as white non-Hispanic.
Figure 2: Population by Race and Ethnicity, Spokane Valley
100%
3%
5%
5%
7%
90%
80%
Hispanic/Latino
70%
60%
Some Other Race Alone
50%
87%
83%Asian Alone
40%
30%
Black or African American Alone
20%
10%White Alone
0%
20122018
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. (2012, 2018). ACS PUMS 1-Year Data
Understanding Area Median Income
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) calculates affordability and income limits
for metro areas and counties across the country, based on the area's Median Family Income (MFI), which
is derived from Census data. Since housing needs vary by family size and costs vary by region, HUD also
produces Area Median Income (AMI) benchmarks for different family sizes on an annual basis. These
benchmarks are used for understanding what different households can afford to pay for housing. In 2018,
the Spokane, WA, HUD Metro Area, which includes the City, AMI was $65,200 for a family of four. HUD
adjusts the income limits up or down, based on family size (see Figure 3).
Figure 3. HUD 2018 Income Limits for Spokane, WA, HUD Metro Fair Market Rent Area
Family Size (Number of People)
Affordability
Level
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
30% $13,700 $15,650 $17,600 $19,550 $21,150 $22,700 $24,250 $25,850
50% $22,850 $26,100 $29,350 $32,600 $35,250 $37,850 $40,450 $43,050
60% $27,420 $31,320 $35,220 $39,120 $42,300 $45,420 $48,540 $51,660
80% $36,550 $41,750 $46,950 $52,150 $56,350 $60,500 $64,700 $68,850
100%$45,700 $52,200 $58,700 $65,200 $70,500 $75,700 $80,900 $86,100
Source: https://www.spokanecounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/26421/HUD-2019-MEDIAN-FAMILY-INCOME-LIMITS-effective-6-28-
2019.
INCOME COMPARISONS IN SPOKANE COUNTY.
Most households in SpokaneValley, 66 percent, earn more than 80 percent of AMI and 34 percent of
households earn less than 80 percent of AMI (ACS, 2018). Compared the City of Spokane and to
2
The U.S. Census Bureau considers race and ethnicity as two distinct concepts. The Census applies two categories for ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino
and Not Hispanic or Latino. Hispanic/Latino is an ethnicity and not a race, meaning that individuals who identify as Hispanic/Latino may be of any
race. The share of the population that identifies as Hispanic/Latino should not be added to percentages for racial categories.
PAGE 6
DRAFT
3
Spokane County as a whole, Spokane Valley has the smallest share of households earning below 30
percent of AMI (eight percent) and the highest share of households earning above 100 percent AMI
(56 percent). The shares of households in the 30 to 100 percent AMI range is similar across the three
jurisdictions (ACS, 2018). Figure4summarizes thisnarrative.
Figure 4: Income Distribution Comparison, 2018
City of Spokane Valley
8%10%16%10%56%
City of Spokane
13%12%16%9%50%
Spokane County
10%11%15%9%54%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Household Income as a % of AMI
0-30% of AMI30-50% of AMI50-80% of AMI80-100% of AMI100%+ of AMI
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2018). ACS PUMS 1-Year Data.
Describing AMI Affordability Levels
Affordability levels categorized by income ranges. Figure 5 describes these income ranges by the
2018 Spokane County AMI rate and corresponding income limits for a family of four.
Figure 5: Characterization of Affordability Levels
Income Description AMI Range Income Range* Monthly Housing Payment Range**
Extremely low-income Below 30% under $19,550 $489 or less
Very low-income 30 to 50% $19,550- $32,600 $489 to $815
Low-income 50 to 60% $32,600- $39,120 $815 to $978
Moderate-income 60 to 80% $39,120-$52,260 $978 to $1,307
Middle-income 80 to 120% $52,260-$78,240 $1,307 to $1,956
High-income Above 120% above $78,240 More than $1,956
* Based on family of four income (HUD, 2018).
** Assumes that up to 30 percent of income is used for housing.
THE PERCENTAGE OF MIDDLE- AND HIGH-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS IN SPOKANE VALLEY IS
INCREASING FOR BOTH OWNERS AND RENTERS.
Comparing the distribution of owner and renter households over time, as shown in Figure 6, reveals
two insights that inform this HAP strategies. First, while the shares of households described as middle-
3
The Spokane County data comprises unincorporated Spokane County and all the incorporated jurisdictions including the City of Spokane and the
City of Spokane Valley.
PAGE 7
DRAFT
income or high-income increased
What is Missing-Middle Housing?
between 2012 and 2018 there is still
Missing-middle housing types bridge a gap between single
roughly one third of the households
family and more intense multifamily housing. They can
generally be described as single-family attached housing units
in the City that are described as
with two or more units such as duplexes, triplexes, quad homes,
moderate-income to extremely low-
and multiplexes. Missing-middle housing types also includes
income. Production of missing-
accessory dwelling units, town homes, backyard homes, and
middle housing such as tiny homes,
row homes.
accessory dwelling units, cottages,
In theory, these space efficient housing units can be more
townhomes and apartment buildings
affordable than other units because they are smaller and
should be a focus of the strategies to
more energy efficient and they use less land resources.
provide new units to house these
Providing middle housing expands opportunities for housing
that may be lower cost than single family detached housing.
families as well as to help preserve
These units can be well-integrated into existing neighborhoods
existing affordable units. The second
and often can be designed to resemble single-family
observation is that these missing-
detached housing. This housing could provide seniors housing
middle home types should be
options that would allow for “downsizing” and lower-
available for ownership, but the maintenance living and would serve moderate to middle-
income households.
greater need is for rental units.
Figure 6: Income Distribution in Spokane Valley, 2012–2018
Overall
8%10%16%10%56%
Renter %17%18%20%11%34%
2018
Owner %4%6%13%10%67%
Overall 19%12%46%
13%10%
Renter %
21%18%25%8%28%
2012
Owner %
9%6%16%14%55%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Household Income as a % of AMI
Less than or equal to 30%30 -50%50-80%80-100%Over 100%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. (2012, 2018). PUMS.
Household incomes have increased overall in Spokane Valley over the last decade. Figure 6 shows
that the share of households earning 100 percent of AMI or more (including a portion of the middle-
income households and all high-income households) increased between 2012 and 2018 overall for
both renters and owners from 46 to 56 percent of the total households. Unsurprisingly, this figure
also shows that households described as middle or high income consistently tend to be homeowners.
Low to moderate income households (households earning below 80 percent AMI) decreased overall
for both owners and renters from 42 to 34 percent of the total.
INCOMES HAVE INCREASED, BUT MORE SO FOR HOMEOWNERS.
Household incomes have increased at a greater rate in Spokane Valley for homeowners than for
renters. Figure 7 shows that the median household income for homeowners in Spokane Valley was
PAGE 8
DRAFT
$77,299 in 2018, whereas the median household income for renters was $38,498. For both household
types, this median income is higher than that of households in Spokane County and the City of
Spokane. Incomes in Spokane Valley increased at an annual rate of 3.8 percent for homeowners,
whereas households that rent saw a 1.9 percent increase per year (PUMS, 2018). For context, median
single-family home prices increased at an inflation adjusted annual rate of 5.1 percent between 2012
and 2018 (Spokane County Assessor, 2020) while the average rental price for a two-bedroom unit
increased at an inflation adjusted annual rate of 1.5 percent during the same period (CoStar, 2020).
Figure 7: Median Household Income, 2012–2018
Median Household RenterIncomeMedian Household OwnerIncome
$80,0004.0%
$80,0004.0%
$70,0003.5%
$70,0003.5%
$60,0003.0%
$60,0003.0%
$50,000
2.5%
$50,0002.5%
$40,0002.0%
$40,0002.0%
$30,0001.5%
$30,0001.5%
$20,0001.0%
$20,0001.0%
$10,0000.5%
$10,0000.5%
$00.0%
$0
0.0%
SpokaneCity ofCity of
SpokaneCity ofCity of
CountySpokaneSpokane
CountySpokaneSpokane
Valley
Valley
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2012, 2018). PUMS. Numbers were adjusted to 2018 inflation values, using the Consumer Price Index.
2.1.3 What are the current housing conditions in Spokane Valley?
SPOKANE VALLEY’S HOUSING STOCK IS SIMILAR TO OTHER EDGE CITIES.
Spokane Valley’s housing is predominantly single-family detached housing. As of mid-
2020, the majority (66 percent) of Spokane Valley’s 38,730 housing units (Spokane County
Assessor, 2020) are single-family detached.Most Spokane Valley residents living in single-
family detached housing own their home (86 percent) rather than rent (ACS 1-Year, 2018).
An additional 20 percent of the housing units are apartments and condos and only 9
percent of the housing stock is single-family attached (includes duplexes, triplexes, and
quad homes). Data source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020. Spokane Valley lacks housing
diversity needed to accommodate future demand particularly associated with aging baby
boomers and young households forming. The city has a low supply (9%) of “missing-
middle” housing or single-family attached housing which allows more seniors to downsize
and remain in their community, while also providing more options for millennial
households and working families to get a foothold in great neighborhoods.
Spokane Valley’s housing stock is relatively new, with nearly one-third built before 1969
and over half built after 1980 (Spokane County Assessor, 2020).
PAGE 9
DRAFT
Spokane Valley has more homeowners than renters. About 67 percent of occupied units
are inhabited by homeowners and 33 percent of occupied units are inhabited by renters
as of 2018 (ACS, 2018).
SPOKANE VALLEY HAS NOT BEEN PRODUCING ENOUGH HOUSING TO MEET DEMAND.
This continual growth has added pressure on a limited supply of housing. From 2010 to 2019, Spokane
Valley saw an average of 345 new housing units built per
Spokane Valley’s population growth and
year, for a total of 3,445 new housing units (Spokane
housing development has remained
County Assessor, 2020). This unit count includes all
steady for most of the decade. From 2010
units, ownership homes and housing units for rent.
to 2018, Spokane Valley’s population grew
Figure 8 illustrates the housing unit development trends
by 7%, adding 6,055 new residents.
in Spokane Valley between 2010 and 2019.
Figure 8: Number of Units Built in Spokane Valley Per Year, 2010–2019
1,0003,500
3,000
800
Cumulative Unit Delivery
2,500
600
2,000
1,500
400
1,000
Units Delivered Annually
200
500
285145437119625216657220267474
00
2010201120122013201420152016201720182019
AnnualCumulativeAnnual Average (345 units/yr)
Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020.
Underproduction is the estimated number of housing units needed to satisfy the housing shortfall
over the last decade. Over the last decade, Spokane Valley underproduced housing by approximately
4
1,463 units (ECONorthwest analysis of OFM and PUMS datasets). If too few housing units are
constructed relative to the number of new households formed, underproduction occurs and
contributes to price increases. Without including current underproduction in calculations of future
need, the current mismatch of housing units to numbers of households will continue into the future.
4
Current underproduction of housing was calculated based on the ratio of housing units produced and new households formed over time. The
average household size in the City is calculated and converted to a ratio of total housing units to households. This ratio is compared to that of the
region as the target ratio. If the City’s ratio is lower, then we calculated the underproduction as the number of units it would have needed to produce
over time, to reach the target ratio.
PAGE 10
DRAFT
A useful way to detect whether the housing supply is meeting the demand is to examine vacancy rates.
On average during the last decade, the vacancy rate was 5.4 percent for 2-bedroom apartments in the
City. This is a standard rate of vacancy, indicating that the supply for this product type should be
adequate to meet demand. However, nearby, the City of Spokane’s vacancy rate was an average of 2.7
percentfor 2-bedroom apartments over the last decade. This low rate is below the 5.0 percent
standard, indicating an inadequate supply to satisfy demand. Vacancy rate trends should be monitored
to track housing supply limitations to help build a more comprehensive understanding of emerging
housing needs.
SPOKANE VALLEY HOME PRICES AND RENTS ARE HIGHER THAN THOSE IN THE COUNTY AND THE CITY
OF SPOKANE.
When demand for new housing exceeds the supply of new housing, the market tightens and prices
rise. Supply and demand imbalances and subsequent price increases can also be exacerbated by rapid
regional job growth and too few newly created housing units to meet the demand for in migration
from the job growth. There has not been a substantial spike in employment in Spokane County;
however, there has been an increase in in-migration with more households moving to the area from
high-cost cities in search of a lower cost of living and the improved quality of life offered in Spokane
Valley and the Spokane region.
Between 2010 and 2020, Spokane Valley’s average
What might an owner’s monthly
two-bedroom rent increased 15 percent, or an
payment be on a $300,000 home?
average of 1.4 percent annualized, while median
The payment on a $300,000 home in Spokane
sales prices increased 48 percent, or an average of
Valley would be about $1,500 per month if
4.0 percent annualized. In 2020, the average rent
financed in 2020. This assumes a 20 percent
for a two-bedroom apartment was $1,131 per
down payment, a 3.8 percent interest, and
$3,500 in taxes based on actual recent comps.
month, while the median sales price for ownership
housing was $300,000.
Figure 9 illustrates this pricing progression. During this period, the average annual rate of inflation
was 1.7 percent. The annual rate of change for an average two-bedroom apartment was in-line with
inflation; however, home prices increased at a rate over three times inflation. Median household
incomes in Spokane Valley increased by 3.8 percent per year for owners and 1.9 percent per year
percent for renters between 2012 and 2018 (ACS, 2018).
Figure 9: Spokane Valley Housing Costs, 2010and 2020
Annualized Percent
2010 2020
Change
Average Rent $983 $1,131 1.4%
Median Sales Price $202,461$300,000 4.0%
Source: CoStar, Spokane County Assessor, 2020. Numbers were adjusted to 2020 inflation values, using the Consumer Price Index
By comparison, two-bedroom rent increased by 13 percent and 11 percent in Spokane County and in
the City of Spokane, respectively, between 2010 and 2020. The current average two-bedroom rent in
Spokane County is $1,094 per month and $1,081 in the City of Spokane. The 2020 median home
prices in Spokane County were $255,900 and $275,000 in the City of Spokane (CoStar, Spokane
PAGE 11
DRAFT
County Assessor, 2020). The escalating cost of housing, especially for those wanting to buy a home,
is a top concern for people finding very few options of housing affordable at their income level.
NEARLY HALF OF SPOKANE VALLEY’S RENTER HOUSEHOLDS ARE COST BURDENED AND THIS COST
BURDENING DISPORTIONATELY IMPACTS LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.
A typical standard used to determine housing affordability is that a household should pay no more
than a certain percentage of gross household income for housing, including payments and interest or
rent, utilities, and insurance. HUD’s guidelines indicate that households paying more than 30 percent
of their income on housing and utilities experience “cost burden,” and households paying more than
50 percent of their income on housing and utilities experience “severe cost burden.”
Without enough rent-restricted and regulated affordable housing, many low-income households end
up paying more than they can afford on housing. In Spokane Valley, an estimated 48 percent of renter
households are cost burdened, and 25 percent are severely cost burdened (ACS, 2018).
Recent figures (2018) show that lower income households and renters are paying a much greater share
of their income on housing. In fact, those most cost burdened tend to be extremely low-income and
very low-income (earning less than Households
earning 50 percent or less of AMI) are
A Note on COVID-19
disproportionally impacted. Nearly 6,500 Another factor affecting housing is the COVID-19
pandemic. Since its emergence, the pandemic
Spokane Valley households earning 50 percent or
has slowed the production of housing in many
less than AMI out of the 7,600 total households
regions and due to growing remote work
in this group are cost burdened, while
practices, commuting rates have diminished and
approximately 4,350 households in this income
housing preferences are shifting. In addition, the
pandemic has impacted the ability to pay for
group are severely burdened (ACS, 2018). The
housing consistently, which will likely exacerbate
need for more affordable housing has expanded
housing availability and stability. These types of
particularly for low to moderate-income owner
trends should be monitored as conditions and
households and low-to moderate-income renter
communities adjust.
households (less than 80% AMI). Low-income
renters earning less than 50% AMI tend to be more severely cost burdened. This may mean trade-offs
5
must be made between housing and paying for other essentials, such as food, clothing, and healthcare.
THERE IS A LIMITED SUPPLY OF RENT-RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND LOW-COST MARKET
RENTALS.
6
Spokane Valley has approximately 1,663 units of rent-restricted affordable housing for households
earning less than 60 percentof AMI (ECONorthwest analysis of HUD, Spokane Housing Authority,
7
and Washington State Housing Finance Commission data, 2020).
5
Cost burdening for owner-occupied households is not terribly common because mortgage lenders typically ensure that a household can pay its debt
obligations before signing off on a loan, but it can occur when a household sees its income decline while still paying a mortgage. Households with
incomes over 100% AMI are less burdened overall since their larger income will go farther to cover non-housing expenses. Cost burden does not
consider accumulated wealth and assets.
6
Rent-restircted affordable housing is income- or rent-restricted to ensure that the housing is occupied by households earning a certain income. Rents
for such units are set so as to be affordable to those income levels. Rent restrictions are set according to the types of funding used to develop the
housing, such as the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, or HUD funding,. The City does not regulate or influence the rates for these units. Most rent-
restricted affordable housing is restricted to be affordable to households earning under 60 percent MFI, but these restrictions vary.
7
The data available for this section describes housing affordable to 60 percent of AMI or lower and in other sections housing affordability is described
in different AMI categories. This is due to differences between various data sources. Household affordability information provided in US Census ACS
PAGE 12
DRAFT
The map in Figure 10 showswhere in Spokane Valley these units are located. Given the limited supply
of these units, Spokane Valley’s population at this income level must compete for lower-cost / lower-
amenity unregulated market rate housing.
Figure 10: Rent-Restricted Unit Location Map,
Like many places, Spokane Valley
Spokane Valley
does not have enough rent-restricted
affordable housing units, which are
costly to build and operate. As a
result, many low-income households
live in low-cost market (unregulated)
housing units (often called naturally
occurring affordable housing, or
NOAHs). There is no official
definition of low-cost market rentals
or NOAH units. They can be defined
by condition/age/and amenity level,
or by rent price (typically below 80
percent of AMI). The common factor
is that they are affordable to low-
income households, but their rents
are unregulated by a funding or
financing program.
Source: ECONorthwest analysis of HUD, Spokane Housing Authority, and
Washington State Housing Finance Commission data, 2020.
2.1.4 Future Housing
Needs
TO ACCOMMODATE NEW RESIDENTS, DEVELOPERS IN SPOKANE VALLEY WILL NEED TO PRODUCE
HOUSING AT A SLIGHTLY FASTER RATE THAN THEY HAVE IN THE PAST.
The OFM medium population forecast indicates that by 2037, Spokane Valley’s population will have
risen to 109,913. Based on Spokane Valley’s population estimate for 2018 (95,810 people), Spokane
Valley is forecast to grow by 14,103 people by 2037 (14.7 percent), at an annual growth rate of 0.7
percent (ECONorthwest calculation; OFM, 2019 data). Spokane Valley is forecasted to grow at a rate
similar to past rates, and this growth will continue to drive future demand for housing in the city over
the planning period.
To accommodate expected population growth through 2037 Spokane Valley will have to produce
6,660 new housing units of all types, sizes, and affordability levels (ECONorthwest analysis). This
translates to 351 housing units per year. Between 2010 and 2019, an average of 345 new housing units
were built in Spokane Valley each year. This means that slightly more housing would need to be built
per year than the average produced from 2010 and 2019. Spokane Valley should continue to support
robust housing growth and advance strategies that support a diversity of housing types and
affordability levels.
and PUMs analysis is not available at the 60 precent level while HUD helps to fund affordable housing developments that provide units to households
earning less than 60 percent of AMI.
PAGE 13
DRAFT
If units are allocated based on recent income distribution
To meet future housing needs the
trends, over half of Spokane Valley’s needed housing units
preservation of NOAH units that may
(3,760 units) should be for households earning at least 100
be displaced because of new
development is important for helping
percent of AMI, and another 10 percent (686 units) targeted
to house very low- to moderate-
for households at above 80 percent AMI. The remaining 33
income households. Strategies in this
percent, or 2,214 housing units, needed through 2037
HAP also need to support the creation
should be targeted for households earning less than 80
of rent restricted affordable housing
units for extremely low- and very low-
percent of AMI. Figure 11 provides the complete
income households through public
distribution of housing units needed among the five AMI
agency support and assistance
ranges. Overall, a healthy housing market should havea
programs since this type of housing is
variety of housing types at different price points that are
becoming increasingly difficult
through the private market.
affordable to a range of different household incomes.
Figure 11. Housing Units Needed in Spokane Valley by AMI, 2037
Number of UnitsNeed Percent of Total Units
AMI
through 2037 Needed
0-30% 5508%
30-50% 6259%
50-80% 1,039 16%
80-100% 68610%
100%+3,760 56%
Total 6,660 100%
Sources: ECONorthwest calculation; OFM, 2019; U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 PUMS.
The housing needs analysis shows a mismatch in the type of housing units available. Around 44
percent of all the City households need housing priced below 100 percent of the AMI, yet this housing
is inadequate since only 34 percent of the current housing stock includes housing types affordable for
incomes below the AMI, such as less expensive detached single-family homes (ADUs, manufactured
homes, cottage), attached single-family homes (duplexes and townhomes and multifamily
developments). Figure 12 illustrates the type of home a household may afford based on its income.
The information in Figure 12, together with Figure 11 above inform the strategies recommended in
this HAP.
PAGE 14
DRAFT
Figure 12: Housing Types and Financial Attainability
Source: ECONorthwest. Note: All values are in 2019 inflation-adjusted dollars.
2.2 Summary of Policy and Regulatory Assessment
A policy and regulatory assessment identified existing housing goals, policies, and strategies from the
2017 Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan as well as housing regulations, programs,and incentives
currently available to encourage greater housing supply and the development of affordable housing in
Spokane Valley. The information was used alongside the housing needs assessment and input from
community members and stakeholders to develop strategy and policy options that could be used to
meet housing needs within Spokane Valley.
2.2.1 Policy Review
In its ComprehensivePlan, Spokane Valleyidentified three goals and four priorities specifically related
to housing. Other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, particularly the Land Use element, include
several other goals and policies related to housing. The summary of housing-related policies and
strategies is organized around four housing themes identified in the Comprehensive Plan:
PAGE 15
DRAFT
Ensure a Range of Housing Options for Residents: During the development of the
Comprehensive Plan, community members identified a need for a greater diversity of housing types
to serve people at all income levels and stages of life. A goal that exemplifies this theme is “allow for
a broad range of housing opportunities to meet the needs of the community.”
Key Action taken: In 2017, Spokane Valley implemented new regulations that allows
missing-middle housing types such as accessory dwelling unit (ADUs); cottage housing;
duplexes; manufactured homes, both on individual lots and in-home parks; and
townhouses. In 2020 the City modified the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) to
establish a new zoning district, R-4 Single-Family Residential Urban that allows the full
range of missing-middle housing products and focused where in the City townhomes and
cottages maybe developed.
Improve Housing Affordability: The current Comprehensive Plan includes a goal to allow for a
diversity of housing options that are affordable to households at all income levels. One such goal is
to “enable the development of affordable housing for all income levels.”
Key Action taken: In 2020, Spokane Valley adopted a new ordinance to authorize a sales
and use tax credit for affordable and supportive housing, which is expected to generate
approximately $178,000 per year. Spokane Valley has not yet designated a specific use for
such revenues.
Enhance Distinctive Neighborhood Character/Support Neighborhood Commercial:Several
goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan encourage neighborhood conveniences and mixed-use
residential development. An example is Housing Element-Goal 3, “Allow convenient access to daily
goods and services in Spokane Valley’s neighborhoods.”
Key Action taken: Spokane Valley modified its zoning regulations in 2020 to create a new
Single-Family Residential Urban (R-4) zoning district that permits more diverse housing
development within close proximity to public transportation and services.
Encourage the Creation of Mixed-Use Destinations: The Comprehensive Plan cites the Kendall
Yards area of Spokane as an example of a mixed-use destination development that combines housing,
retail, and amenities in a walkable community connected to transit. Land Use Element Goal 3 calls for
Spokane Valley to “support the transformation of commercial, industrial, and mixed-use areas into
accessible districts that attract economic activity.”
Key Action taken: Spokane Valley’s mixed-use zones (MU and Corridor Mixed-Use
\[CMU\[) allow for concurrent development of residential and commercial space. These
uses may be developed side by side or on top of each other, with the commercial space
on the ground floor.
A detailed review of the existing policies, actions taken by Spokane Valley to date, and an evaluation
of these actions is available in Appendix C.
PAGE 16
DRAFT
2.2.2 Regulatory Review
A detailed review of Spokane Valley’s existing zoning and permit procedures helped to identify where
housing development is currently allowed and how it is permitted. Spokane Valley has five residential
zones (R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, and MFR) that are specifically intended to support residential development;
however, certain residential development is also permitted in mixed use zones and nonresidential
zones. The residential zoning districts range from Single-Family Residential Estate (R-1), the least
dense zone, which allows for lots of at least 40,000 square feet and one dwelling unit per acre (du/ac);
to Multifamily Residential (MFR), which has no minimum lot size and allows up to 22 du/ac. No
density bonuses are currently allowed, except in Planned Residential Developments. The City has
placed a moratorium on new Planned Residential Developments and related regulations are currently
under review.
Appendix C includes a detailed review of dimensional requirements and parking standards for each
zoning district. Spokane Valley has three main permit application types, which correspond to
increasing levels of review procedures. For example, Type I permits generally have limited public
notice and are administratively approved, while Type III permits require extensive public notice and
are subject to a public hearing and approval by a neutral Hearing Examiner. Most residential
development types fall under Type I or II application review, with the exception of cottage housing,
industrial ADU development, and subdivisions, which require the more intensive Type III review. In
addition, Spokane Valley has adopted the maximum State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)flexible
exemption thresholds so that multifamily developments of 60 units or fewer are not required to go
through SEPA review.
2.2.3 Barriers
BARRIERS TO DEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING HOUSING TYPES
The housing development process is defined in the SVMC and in practice by Spokane Valley staff.
There is sufficient development capacity on land in Spokane Valley to support a range of new housing,
and the zoning regulations provide flexibility for developers to deliver housing at a pace to meet the
identified housing needs assessment objective of at least 6,600 housing units by 2037, or around 351
units per year.
Spokane Valley is primarily a large-lot,
The community was asked...
single-family community. While residents
How can the City of Spokane Valley improve housing for
have voiced appreciation for those
our community?
“More cottages and duplexes”
characteristics, a survey conducted for this
project identified a desire for more housing “More housing options such as condos and
townhouses.”
choices, including townhomes, ADUs, and
“More auxiliary housing, cottages on homeowner lots.”
cottages. Spokane Valley should continue
“By not regulating so tightly the ability to put
to support housing growth and advance
ADUs on properties.”
strategies in support of housing growth for
“Allow homeowners to build ADUs, cottages and co-
a diversity of housing types and
housing.”
affordability levels to meet its target.
PAGE 17
DRAFT
Several barriers impact the delivery of housing in general and specific types of housing such as the
allowed maximum density in specific zones, open space requirements, and allowed building height for
multi-family development are areas where the City may improve the quantity, quality, and range of
new housing development. Other barriers identified are beyond Spokane Valley’s control, such as the
market’s acceptance of different housing types or appeals of project from residents.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDING AND INCENTIVES
While its zoning regulations allow flexibility in the housing types permitted, Spokane Valley currently
has limited incentives to support the development of a range of housing types that are attainable for
a broad variety of household incomes. The policy and regulatory review found that Spokane Valley
should explore additional funding mechanisms and incentives to encourage affordable housing
development. Recommended strategies are discussed in Section 3 of this HAP.
2.3 Summary of Public Engagement
MFA led a robust public engagement process to gather community input to inform the HAP. The
purpose of the community engagement is to connect with and listen to residents, workers, businesses,
nonprofit organizations, service providers, and other key stakeholders. The community’s participation
in this process includes qualitative, anecdotal input as well as quantitative input via a survey to develop
and support the recommendations offered in the HAP. Below is a summary of the survey results and
the interviews. In addition to public engagement efforts taken during the development of the HAP,
additional public engagement will occurred as part of the adoption process.
2.3.1 Community Engagement Approach
The outreach process was predicated on the need to conduct engagement reflecting the Spokane
Valley community and to help illuminate the City’s housing opportunities and challenges. Community
input helped shape the direction of the HAP’s strategies and recommendations. Draft strategies and
recommendations were then reviewed by staff, and the final HAP, once prepared, will be distributed
to the public for further comment prior to adoption.
A list of the outreach tactics used in development of the HAP is summarized in Figure 13. Conducting
community outreach amidst the COVID-19 pandemic presented unique challenges. All community
outreach that has been conducted to inform the HAP was held by video or phone calls with people
who had access to technology and via a public survey. Because of the challenge of scheduling and
organizing effective focus groups, we concentrated our outreach efforts on a set of one-on-one
interviews with a diverse group of community stakeholders and developers.
Figure 13: List of Outreach Tactics
Month Outreach Tactics
Summer 2020 Community engagement plan
Project web page, materials, and “on-hold” message for the City of Spokane Valley
general phone line
Stakeholder interviews
Community and partner update describing the HAP purpose, need, and process
PAGE 18
DRAFT
Month Outreach Tactics
Fall 2020 Community survey #1 about the current state of housing and housing needs (Survey
was live 9/21–10/19)
Website updates regarding project status
Winter 2020–21 City magazine article about the HAP (quarterly magazine mailed to over 50,000
residents in November 2020)
Website updates regarding project status
Community and partner update on project status
Appendix D contains the complete summary of the community engagement process, including goals,
approach, and methodology for identified stakeholder input.
2.3.2 Public Engagement Results
ONLINE SURVEY
In September and October 2020, an online public survey was conducted. A total of 124 respondents
completed the survey. The Spokane Valley community was well represented, and demographics of
those that took the survey aligned closely to the makeup of the City.Key findings from the survey are
summarized below. Appendix Dcontains additional information on the survey.
Owners and renters in Spokane Valley: The survey asked whether the respondents owned or rented
their homes. All respondents answered this question and 75 percent were owners—56 percent owned
with a mortgage and 19 percent owned free and clear. Renters accounted for 23 percentof the
responses. The other three respondents either occupied their unit without payment of rent or they did
not have stable housing.
Barriers to renting in Spokane Valley: Only 25 of the 124 respondents (20 percent) identified as
renters. This question allowed respondents to select more than one choice. The 25 respondents
provided a total of 31 responses. Of these 31 responses, 77 percent said finding affordable housing in
the city was a barrier to renting. Challenges included not being able to find affordable housing (61
percent identified this as a barrier), 10 percent identified as a barrier not being able to find housing
that accepted housing vouchers, and six percent said past evictions, or no ADA-available units was a
barrier. The remaining 23 percent of renters did not experience any barriers to renting.
Barriers to purchasing a home in Spokane Valley: This question asked if respondents had recently
tried to buy or bought a home and allowed respondents to select more than one answer. The 102
responses include renters and homeowners. Of this total, 23 percent said affordability was a barrier,
and 18 percent could not afford a down payment. Others noted difficulty finding the right type of
housing, being outbid, or not finding a place in the location they wanted. Less than half of the
respondents did not encounter any barriers (45 percent, or 29 of 64).
Types of housing in Spokane Valley: Of the 124 respondents, 109 indicated the type of housing
that they currently live in. Single-family homes accounted for 80 percent of where respondents live,
while the next most common housing type was multifamily homes at 13 percent.
PAGE 19
DRAFT
Favored housing types for Spokane Valley: Respondents were also asked what type of housing
they would like to live in. Of the 124 respondents 107 provided at least one answer. Respondents
could select more than one housing type and a total of 159 housing types were selected. Single-family
homes were the most desired housing type at 60 percent of responses, though nearly all the
respondents (90 percent) included single-family homes as one of their choices. The next most favored
were:
Cottages: 16 percent of the total responses selected this choice.
Townhomes: Nine percent of the total responses selected this choice.
Duplex: Seven percent of the total responses selected this choice.
Housing options in the greatest need: Respondents were asked what kind of housing options are
in greatest need in Spokane Valley. Of the 124 respondents, 93 provided at least one answer.
Respondents could select more than one type of housing and a total of 206 responses were provided.
Of the 93 respondents, 73 percent felt more affordable ownership housing options were in the greatest
need. The other two most frequently selected needs were the desire for more affordable housing for
seniors, with 48 percent selecting this choice, and the desire for more flexibility for single-family
homeowners to build accessory dwelling units, such as backyard cottages, with 44 percent selecting
this choice.
The survey also asked respondents to address three open-ended questions. The questions and
summary of the responses are below.
Are there any issues or challenges that impact quality of life in your neighborhood?
Respondentsprovided atotal of 65 comments. Responses ranged from lack of affordable housing to
pesky neighbors. Respondents noted that higher drug, crime, and homelessness areas are often also
lower income housing areas. The desire for recreation and parks was mentioned several times.
How can the City of Spokane Valley improve housing for our community? Respondents
provided a total of 89 comments. The comments generally noted either the need to encourage the
development of more affordable housing and to help promote more housing choices.
What is the primary reason you chose to live in Spokane Valley? Respondents provided a total
of 92 comments. Comments indicated that apart from train traffic, Spokane Valley is a quiet
community with less vehicle traffic and fewer challenges associated with bigger cities. Good schools
and great quality of life were noted many times, as well as ease of access to Interstate 90.
ONE-ON-ONE INTERVIEW SUMMARY
The purpose of the one-on-one interviews was to discern and understand the current and historical
housing situation of Spokane Valleythrough intentional discussion and analysis of the lived and
professional experiences from local developers and community leaders. Below is a summary of
feedback; Appendix D presents more details and supporting recommendations from stakeholders.
PAGE 20
DRAFT
Development Process
Input from the developers interviewed was that development process in Spokane Valley is working
efficiently for permitting and constructing new single-family and multifamily housing. Interviewees
indicated positive experiences working with building officials and Spokane Valley staff navigating the
permit process. The fee schedules are in line with the market. However, those involved with
developing affordable housing noted there would be an added benefit to an otherwise challenging
development pro forma if the City reduced or waived fees for affordable housing projects.
Competitive and Limited Affordable Housing Funding Sources
With regards to affordable housing, federal, state, and local funds are limited and highly competitive
and there is limited funding available for distribution to projects annually. It was noted that there are
only two qualified census tracts in the city, 117.02 and 118.00. Affordable housing developments in
qualified census tracts that apply for low-income housing tax credit funding receive a boost in the
amount of tax credits they can receive. These tax credits are important for making regulated affordable
housing projects feasible. Interviewees noted the benefits that a City managed housing fund supported
through a property tax levy for affordable housing and/or sales and use tax fund for affordable and
supportive housing.
Opportunities to Encourage Housing Development
Several interviewees noted that there is very limited inventory for starter homes and the gap in missing-
middle housing in Spokane Valley is real. The following summarizes the range of ideas offered based
on the interviewees’ professional experience and their conversations with the community:
Low-Income Households
Rent deposits and documentation requirements can be hurdles for portions of the
population. Consider programs or policies that address this hurdle.
Down payment assistance for first time home buyers– either through a City fund or a
community partner.
Acknowledge equity and race in the City’s Comprehensive Plan to position the City to
address housing equity.
Limited equity co-ops are a means to create wealth and home ownership for long-term
tenants. Challenges include patient investors and gap financing. The other model often
noted is shared equity. These programs do not require City intervention. The city may
provide resources and information, and/or provide financial support for limited equity
co-ops if it creates a housing fund.
Programs and Incentives
Provide housing around state and federally supported transportation investments. Planned
Action Environmental Impact Statements may provide additional incentives for
developing housing in these areas by reducing the project-level permitting process.
Implement a multifamily tax exemption program.
PAGE 21
DRAFT
Offer nonprofits the first right of refusal to develop affordable housing units on City-
owned properties or properties with a property tax lien.
Brownfields may provide land opportunities not sought by market-rate developers.
Outreach and Partnerships
A regional communications campaign dispelling housing myths and showing the positive
benefits of healthy homes.
Partner with neighborhood groups or support the creation of one that is focused on
Spokane Valley. SNAP (Spokane Neighborhood Action Partners) is a model.
Seek partnerships with private entities seeking philanthropic endeavors. A local example is
a project in northeast Spokane that was built by Spokane Housing Ventures in partnership
with Empire Health Foundation. Traditional affordable housing funding sources were
used as was support from the foundation.
Threats to Housing Development and Preservation of Affordable Units
Several interviewees mentioned threats to housing development and the need to preserve affordable
units. A range of observations and ideas were offered based on the interviewees’ professional
experience and their many conversations with the community.
Lumber prices have gone up by more than 120 percent over the past year. There is not
anything the City can do about this, but these increased costsdirectly impact housing
prices.
Labor shortages impact development costs. It was noted that encouraging more trade jobs
through apprenticeship programs or partnerships could help grow the workforcethat may
reduce labor availability and related development cost impacts.
Rent-restricted developments that need rehabilitation could be an area of focus. The
rehabilitation costs require debt, and the financial package may require higher incomes.
The unintended consequence is a loss of units that serve the 30 percent or less AMI
households.
One developer shared about a single-family subdivision that was subject to public
comment and SEPA review being held up because of protest from nearby residents
despite complying with local code.
External Forces Driving Developers from Spokane County
Developers that have been active in Spokane County indicated that they are seeking development
opportunities in northern Idaho where the housing market is similar but where there is significantly
less state regulation. These observations are for information and context. The City has limited
influence to improve these identified conditions.
Interviewees noted the diminishing availability of large tracks of unimproved land in
Washington and the increasing cost of land relative to Idaho as driving forces. There was
PAGE 22
DRAFT
also a strong desire to expand the Urban Growth Boundary to provide more land to
develop housing.
Several interviewees cited that the energy code revisions adopted by Washington will add
costs to home development. These measures, which take effect in 2021, increase
development costs which are passed through to the home buyer.
Finally, Washington state’s condominium laws create a disincentive to develop this type of
attainable housing due to insurance requirements. Condominium law reform is needed to
encourage development of higher density condominium buildings that may offer
affordable home ownership options.
PRE HAP-ADOPTION OUTREACH
Community input was used to shape the direction of the HAP’s strategies and recommendations.
Draft strategies and recommendations were then reviewed by staff, and the final HAP, once
prepared, will be posted on the HAP project web page (www.spokanevalley.org/HAP), distributed
to the public for further comment, and refined based on feedback prior to adoption.
2.4 Displacement Risk Analysis
Displacement occurs when a household is forced to relocate because of changes in the housing market,
either because their housing is being redeveloped or undergoing major renovations or because their
housing costs are increasing to beyond what they can afford. With regional housing prices escalating
and new housing development taking place, some existing residents in Spokane Valley may be at risk
for displacement. The overarching intent of examining displacement risk is to help Spokane Valley
proactively identify residents who may be at risk and help inform strategies for preventing and
minimizing displacement.
This analysis of socioeconomic and demographic displacement risk was modeled after the Puget
Sound Regional Council’s Displacement Risk Mapping Tool and is based off a method developed by
ECONorthwest. Six variables that can highlight areas where households are most susceptible to
displacement were evaluated at the block group level. The evaluated variables were:
Percent of population that is a race other than non-Hispanic white
Percent of households that speak a language other than English at home
Percent of population under 25 who lack a bachelor’s degree
Percent of households that are renters
Percent of households paying more than 30 percent of gross income on housing
Per capita income
These factors include renter households, low-income households, and households that are more likely
to experience housing discrimination (including communities of color, seniors, and other marginalized
(populations).
PAGE 23
DRAFT
2.4.1 Types of Displacement
There are typically three types of displacement referred to as economic, direct, and cultural
displacement (ECONorthwest research).
Economic or indirect displacement. Economic displacement
Low-income households
can occur if new development or redevelopment in an area rents
are at high risk of
economic displacement,
or sells at higher price points that encourage owners of existing
as they have fewer
units to increase rents, and these increases exceed what existing
choices about where
tenants can afford. The effects of (re)development renting at
they can afford to live.
market rates may spill over to lower-cost rental units, causing
rents to rise and potentially displacing existing residents. Economic displacement can happen
without new development or redevelopment when high demand and low housing supply push
prices up. Economic insecurity and displacement are a very important issue for existing
communities, but they are difficult to measure quantitatively.
Physical or direct displacement. Physical
In theory, any type of household could
displacement occurs if existing housing is torn
be at risk of physical displacement due
to a new development demolishing
down for redevelopment and existing tenants are
their current housing. But in reality, low-
displaced. In some cases, public programs could
income households, households of
encourage displacement by incenting a developer
color, immigrant households, and other
to rehabilitate or replace older, low-cost housing
marginalized populations are at higher
risk of physical displacement. Wealthy
(unregulated affordable housing) with newer,
or “powerful” households are at lower
higher-priced units. This could lead to the direct
risk of direct displacement, as they may
displacement of existing residents, who may not be
not live in areas experiencing new
able to afford the higher rents in the new
development, and they may hold sway
development.
over decision makers or otherwise know
how to exert influence in the process.
Cultural displacement. Cultural displacement
Marginalized communities—be
occurs when people move because their neighbors and
they low-income, a specific
race or ethnicity, or another
culturally relevant businesses and institutions have left the
group of people—are at higher
area. The presence (or absence) of these cultural assets
risk of cultural displacement
can influence racial or ethnic minority households, more
than dominant communities.
than broader populations, in their decisions about where
When businesses and housing
that serve these communities
to live. While this is difficult to measure quantitatively, and
leave or are removed, people
one could consider whether these are “choices” or
can feel pushed out of their
whether this is “forced” displacement, it is an important
neighborhoods.
effect that can have broad equity implications beyond
physical or economic displacement alone. Cultural displacement can also include business
displacement.
2.4.2 Areas with Displacement Risk
Figure 14 shows the results of the socioeconomic and demographic variables identified in section 2.4
that have been used to measure displacement risk. The layering of socioeconomic characteristics for
each block group in Spokane Valley shows the neighborhoods that have the highest risk for all three
types of displacement. Seventeen of the 64 Census block groups are identified as high vulnerability
PAGE 24
DRAFT
and 31 are identified as medium vulnerability. Of the total population that comprises these block
groups, 27 percent is in a high-vulnerability block group and 46 percent is in a medium-vulnerability
block group.
Figure 14: Displacement Risk in Spokane Valley by Block Group
Legend
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2018). ACS.
More conversations and analysis are needed to truly understand displacement risk. A deeper dive into
economic displacement resulting from the spillover of new development requires a robust analysis of
new and existing rent trends, which is beyond the scope of this work. In addition, measuring cultural
displacement is difficult, and not quantifiable from data. It requires qualitative information from in-
person engagement with people living near new development. When the City considers land use
changes and planning projects it should track, monitor, and engage intentionally with high vulnerability
areas.
2.5 Development Feasibility Analysis
To inform recommendations about new and revised development incentive programs that can
support more housing, including more affordable housing, development (or financial) feasibility was
analyzed by ECONorthwest using several housing prototypes and market data unique to submarkets
and different development types across Spokane Valley.
PAGE 25
DRAFT
This development feasibility sensitivity analysis
Policy Evaluation and
helps identify regulatory and program
Financial Feasibility
recommendations that would most effectively
To compare development feasibility and the
advance Spokane Valley’s goals of creating new
impact of policy options across different
housing to meet forecast demand and growth,
development types, ECONorthwest used a
common method to identify economic
creating a variety of housing types at different price
feasibility called a residual land value analysis.
points to meet the needs of current and future
Residual land value is an estimate of what a
residents. The results of the sensitivity tests are
developer would be able to pay for land given
summarized in the following sections and help to
ty’s income from rental or sales
the proper
revenue, the cost to build as well as any cost to
inform recommendations for changes to Spokane
operate the building, and the investment returns
Valley’s housing programs and development code.
needed to attract capital for the project. In
Potential regulatory modifications and programs
other words, it is the budget that developers
tested herein were informed by the regulatory
have remaining for land after all the other
analysis. Appendix E provides more detail on this development constraints have been analyzed.
analysis, along with a summary of assumptions.
A few of the housing strategies recommended in this HAPto encourage more housing variety and
housing supply include modifications to existing development code as wella recommendation for the
City to consider the adoption of a multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) program. Code modifications
and the potential addition of MFTE program incentives were analyzed to evaluate their effectiveness
in improving the likelihood of development of townhomes and multifamily apartments. A
development feasibility analysis tests the impact that various changes to development standards and
incentive programs have on market-realistic development examples called prototypes.
2.5.1 Analysis Overview
The purpose of this analysis is to examine a set of key program changes and policy levers that can help
“tip” project feasibility for the MFTE program and regulatory changes in Spokane Valley.
This section describes the findings from evaluating a set of key planning tools, specifically the MFTE
and regulatory changes—including modifications to the allowed density in certain zones and changes
to other development standards. These planning tools were selected for their potential to boost
housing production, especially housing priced for low- to middle-income households.
MFTE: The MFTE allows a local jurisdiction to incentivize diverse housing options in
urban centers lacking in housing choices or workforce housing units by providing taxing
exemptions or credits for developers. Essentially this program supports increased housing
availability, possibly including affordable units, largely in mixed-income developments
conveniently located in urban centers. Chapter 84.14 RCW outlines the existing
requirements for implementing a MFTE program. This program exempts eligible new
construction or rehabilitated housing from paying property taxes for either an eight-year
or a 12-year period. Only projects with four or more rental units are eligible for either the
eight- or 12-year exemption, and only property owners who commit to renting or selling
at least 20 percent of these units to low- and moderate-income households—earning less
than 80 percent of the AMI—are eligible for the 12-year exemption. Spokane Valley
currently does not have an established MFTE program. Additional detail on the MFTE
program is provided in Appendix E.
PAGE 26
DRAFT
MFTE Testing Parameters: Test out the addition of a MFTE program offering a
12-year tax exemption that would require that at least 20 percent of the units be set aside
for households earning 80 percent of the AMI or less. In Spokane County, the AMI for a
four-person household was $77,400 in 2020. Two ways that this program was tested were:
MFTE program without any increase in residential density in MFR zones.
MFTE program with an increase in allowed residential density up to 40 du/ac in MFR
zones compared to the 22 du/ac that is allowed under the current regulations.
Density and Development Standards: The density of residential buildings is limitedby
the maximum density allowances that the SVMC sets for each zone. Density allowances
differ by zone and sometimes are specific to the type of residential building. Residential
density is important for housing development because it determines the number of
dwelling units that can be built on a parcel. Minimum lot sizes can also influence residential
development, since they can prevent development on lots below a certain size.
The number and size of housing units that can be built on a parcel is also determined by
requirements for nonresidential uses or areas to be set aside and not developed. Open-
space requirements (as well as setbacks and minimum landscape requirements) limit the
residential building size on a parcel. The size of the building can also be limited by
maximum lot coverage, which determines the largest share of a parcel that a building can
occupy.
Residential density on a development site can increase by modifying standards affecting
the horizontal aspects of a project (i.e., building footprints via setback and open space
regulatory changes) or standards influencing the vertical profile of a project (i.e., the
maximum building height).
Development Prototypes Tested: Three prototypes are evaluated in this feasibility
analysis; two types of townhomes and garden style apartments. The financial feasibility
findings would generally track with other similar missing-middle product types such as
duplexes and cottages.
Townhomes are side-by-side- attached single family housing types that are oftentimes
associated with fee simple development and small lot sizes. Townhomes can also be built
as attached single family condominium housing on larger parcels.
3-story townhomes on a 0.3-acre lot. Townhomes are 2-bedroom or 3-bedroom units
with about 1,400 square feet (sf) to 1,700 sf of net floor area, sharing walls with
neighboring units, a one-car garage on the ground floor, and a driveway that can
function as an additional parking stall. They are assumed to sell at about $421,000 per
unit on average.
3-story townhomes on a 1.0-acre lot. These townhomes are the same as above, but
they are laid out on two rows and share a private alleyway. They are assumed to sell at
about $429,000 per unit on average.
Garden style apartments are generally characterized as three-story wood frame
construction multifamily rentals.
PAGE 27
DRAFT
For this analysis ECONorthwest
Figure 15: Garden-Style Apartment
evaluated 3-story, garden-style
Example
apartments on a 2.5-acre lot.
Apartments have a mix of various sizes
ranging from 600 sf for a studio unit to
1,300 sf for a 3-bedroom unit.
Residents and their guests have access
to surface parking and a shared lobby or
common space area. The average rent is
assumed to be $1,400 per month. An
example image of a garden-style
apartment is show in Figure 15.
2.5.2 Summary of Development Feasibility Findings
Below is a thematic overview of the findings from the development feasibility assessment. For more
detail on the analysis, assumptions, and dollar values of the assessment results, please refer to
Appendix E.
Based on existing development standards and land prices in Spokane Valley, the townhome
prototype has limited feasibility in the R-4 zone and three-story garden-style apartments
are not feasible in the MFR zone, given current land prices. The value of new development
is limited by development standards that restrict the scale of development possible on a
parcel. Increasing density allowances is an effective way to encourage development of
townhomes and garden-style apartments in Spokane Valley.
For garden-style apartments, the 12-year MFTE also makes projects more cost-effective
and feasible, but it is not as impactful as increasing density allowances to 40 du/ac.
The development prototypes that tested policy changes included townhomes and
apartments at various densities. However, the development feasibility of other missing-
middle housing types such as duplexes and cottages would also benefit from these density
increases.
Decreasing open-space requirements, increasing maximum lot coverage, or increasing
maximum building height is unlikely to have any meaningful effect on housing
development in the near future.
PAGE 28
UBC$5
DRAFT
3 HOUSING STRATEGY RECOMMENDATIONS
The strategy recommendations advanced in this HAP were informed by public engagement, data
analysis, review of relevant policies and planning documents, staff input, and development feasibility.
These recommendations are intended to be options for Spokane Valley that will, if implemented,
provide tools to increase housing supply, increase variety of housing types, and/or increase the
availability of housing affordable to all income levels in Spokane Valley.
The housing needs assessment concluded that 6,660 new housing units are needed to support growth
in the City though 2037. With 1,175 of those units needed for households earning 50 percent or less
than AMI, this HAP provides recommended actions that focus on supporting this largely rental
household population that is largely cost burdened or severely cost burdened. There is also an
additional need for 1,039 units that needs to be targeted to households earning between 50 and 80
percent of AMI. Strategies that encourage and provide incentives to develop missing-middle housing
typesare provided because these are homes where many millennial families first start or where seniors
move to down-size.
There is no “silver bullet” for developing housing strategies, as each idea brings benefits, drawbacks,
different levels of impact, and tradeoffs. These recommended actions are proposed because they can
help to fulfill housing needs equitably across the spectrum of different household incomes.
The recommendations are organized under the following goals, and are not ordered in any rank or
priority:
A. Preserve existing affordable housing and prevent and mitigate displacement.
Housing preservation and anti-displacement recommendations can mitigate and minimize
the negative effects that often arise from new housing development. Housing preservation
and anti-displacement recommendations can expand housing affordability and availability
in various ways. Of particular focus is aging housing stock that could be at risk of
investment purchases (where they are bought, renovated, and rented at higher prices). This
is important in the Census Block Groups identified as at high risk for development
feasibility and physical displacement.
B. Increase market-rate and affordable housing supply throughout Spokane Valley
but focused on zones that support multifamily and missing-middle housing types.
The housing needs assessment found that a range of housing types meeting the
affordability needs for a range of household incomes will be needed to meet the identified
goal through 2037 as illustrated in Figure 11. Recommended actions to encourage the
development of a diversified housing stock include SVMC modifications, provision of
incentives, and the consideration of a targeted tax exemption.
C. Increase housing options and housing choice. Increasing housing choice and
expanding options to households in Spokane Valley is a focus of several housing and land
use policies and goals. The City has policies and regulations that support “middle housing”
development, such as cottages, duplexes, triplexes, and ADUs. Recommended actions will
PAGE 29
DRAFT
encourage the development of more ADUs, provide for the development of tiny homes
and tiny home villages, support transitional housing, and provide for the establishment a
City program to fund efforts to supporting housing for the full range of income ranges.
3.1 Summary of Housing Strategy Recommendations
Figure 16 provides an overview of each recommended
action by category. These recommendations are within
Only Recommendations
Spokane Valley’s control, but work will span
The adoption of this HAP by City Council
departments and involve meaningful contributions from does not mean these recommendations
will all be advanced. The recommended
stakeholders such as the City Council and thePlanning
actions will undergo their own process for
Commission, as well as renters, homeowners, advocates,
review, adoption, and engagement.
developers (both affordable and market-rate), and many
others.
Each housing strategy recommendation presented in Figure 16 includes a description of how it
advances Spokane Valley’s Comprehensive Plan housing goals, the rationale for moving forward, and
key next steps. Some recommended actions may cross over into other categories. The detailed
assessment of each recommended action follows the summary of recommended actions found in
Figure 16.
PAGE 30
31
PAGE
es
for the City in
in effective
s
DRAFT
engage
costs and benefits of a
program that includ
.
the
:
to receive data.
.
actions
Implementation Considerations
Spokane Valley
a
.
nsider working with housing partners in developing
esearch and evaluate
Evaluate the feasibility from a City resource standpoint of establishing a monitoring program and coa monitoring programRrental housing business license program order to monitor the
rental housing stock and the income ranges they serve.Developmethods to evaluate risks and community outreachWork with community organizations to identify new programs and partnerships;
identify potential funding sources; consider relocation assistance for displaced renters
Work with community organizations and identify potential funding sources
-
:
rent
.
of
actions
nsure safe
to support these recommended
the City
seek funding for
to increase access to
;
et the needs of the community.
fair housing policies.
buildings of historic value and unique character.”
ishing a rental housing
Mitigation
restricted housing supply.
-
to support the development of affordable housing units.” to “…support the
.
partners
Description
y owners to rehabilitate and preserve buildings of historic value and unique character” to
Consider establishing and
g for programs requiring financial aid or
affordable housing units in
pay attention to current conditions in areas
;
of affordable housing units.”
Implement a program to monitor the supplyrestricted Maintenance of such a knowledge base will allow the City and community housing partners to foresee and plan for threats to rentTo
address potential displacement risks, erental housing and collect key data on rental housing properties by establbusiness license programIdentify and track key demographic and socioeconomic
data for neighborhoods in Spokane Valleytargeted for growth.Work with community tenant supports. monitoring compliance with Seek fundinresources.Work with community organizations to
increase access to homebuyer supportsdown payment assistance and financial counseling classes.
s and Policies that support these recommended
Land
estricted
Impacts
tance
R
-
ion
ed
Assis
and preservation
ent
Potential
Act
R
buildings that provide affordable housing and
Propos
P1 “Support voluntary efforts by propertP3 “Use available financial and regulatory tools
Recommended
--
isplacement
. Summary of Recommended Actions
ider a Housing Element Strategy that encourages Spokane Valley to establish a rental housing business license program.
Monitor PropertiesRetain Affordable Market Rate UnitsEvaluate Dfrom Use ChangesProvide Tenant SupportProvide Homeowner Resource
6 Preservation of Affordable Housing and Displacement
1
G1 Allow for a broad range of housing opportunities to meG2 Enable the development of affordable housing for all income levels.
-
-
HHRevise H“…preserve Revise Hdevelopment Consider a Housing Element Strategy that encourages Spokane Valley to monitor its regulated affordable housing units.Cons
2
Comprehensive Plan GoalRecommended Comprehensive Plan Goal, Policy, or Strategy Updates
A1AA3A4A5
No.
Goal A:
Action
Figure
32
PAGE
y
ality.
needed to
DRAFT
s
solicit input from stakeholders
.
y and
stud
Implementation Considerations
SVMC
a
use residential projects” to “…that seek to
-
lic benefit of affordable units with lost revenues.
Review potential actions and draft regulations to revise the Conduct to weigh public benefit of affordable units with lost tax revenues.Conduct additional studies and solicit input to
weigh pubWeigh potential areas and resourceimplement a planned action ordinance.
-
d
served
-
in open
to support these recommended actions:
4, multifamily,
-
use
-
4, multifamily, and
-
velopment where a well
emphasis on transit
use residential projects.”
-
Description
Consider flexibility
income, mixed
.
-
mixed
or
.
use zones
-
tory tools to support the development of affordable housing units.
year MFTE program in R
-
use zones with an
-
income,
-
fordable units. Waive up to 80 percent of impact
Plan Goal, Policy, or Strategy Updates
Decrease minimum lot sizes, increase density limits, and modify the lot coverage ratios in Rand mixedspace requirements and setbacks for cottages.Adopt 12mixedareas.Allow increased density
in exchange for inclusion of affees for projects with affordable units. Consider local sales tax waivers for projects that provide affordable housing at or below 30 percent of AMI.Subareas
with a planned action ordinance will provide for streamlined dedefined vision has been defined, infrastructure investments made, and specific incentives createto encourage mixeddevelopment
-
s and Policies that support these recommended actions:to
Supply
ion
SVMC
MFTE
ize the density of development along major transit corridors and near transit centers and commercial areas.
Act
P13 “Work collaboratively with landlords and developers that seek to provide mixed
-
Recommended
affordable housing, mixed
dopt a
dopt development regulations that expand housing choices by allowing innovative housing types, including tiny homes, accessor
Modify the encourage production of townhomes and cottagesAprogramCreate incentives to produce additional market rate and affordable housing Adopt a planned action ordinance(s) in subareas
with transit investment or where large, mixeduse phased developments can occur
Increase Housing
G4 Ensure that land use plans, regulations, review processes, and infrastructure improvements support economic growth and vitP14 Enable a variety of housing types.P16 Maxim
---
G1 Allow for a broad range of housing opportunities to meet the needs of the community.G2 Enable the development of affordable housing for all income levels.P2 AP3 Use available financial
and regula
-
---
HHHdwelling units, prefabricated homes, cohousing, cottage housing, and other housing types.HLULULULU Strategy: Collaborate with the private sector to ensure the successful redevelopment
of vacant land at Mirabeau Point.Revise LUprovide
Recommended Comprehensive
B1B2B3B4
Comprehensive Plan Goal
No.
Goal B:
Action
33
PAGE
ssory
ngage
viders.
DRAFT
Continue to e
use land.
-
partners about the need for
to support the development
and
al housing.
ndards and established approved
Implementation Considerations
.
income households.
-
facilities and how they will integrate in the area.
Revise ADU stamodelsReview and modify land use and building codes to permit tiny homes in specific zones.Evaluate best practices and the feasibility of siting shelters or transitionwith
the community such
,
modifications
to support these recommended actions:
;
income to extremely low
-
itional housing.
been slow
ll income levels.
.
cost trans
has
-
stablish streamlined policies
e
Description
.
ng units that target moderate
ulations, and guidance relating to the siting of
Development of ADUs to the SVMC may increase the production of these attainable unitsAllow tiny homes as an alternative to ADUs. Allow for tiny house villages in MU zones or on publicly/religious
owned properties to promote development of lowerConsider minimum density requirements for tiny house villages.Establish siting requirements for homelessness support centers and regHomeless
Services in City
at are essential to Spokane Valley residents, employees, and visitors.
ensive Plan Goal, Policy, or Strategy Updates
tiny
s and Policies that support these recommended actions:
n
ion
ble financial and regulatory tools to support the development of affordable housing units.
Act
regulations
Recommended
Update regulations for Accessory Dwelling UnitsPermit and clarify homeCoordinate with existing systems of care for effective Homeless Services Implementatio
Increase Housing Choice
G2 Provide for land uses thP9 Provide supportive regulation for new and innovative development types on commercial, industrial, and mixedP14 Enable a variety of housing types.
---
G1 Allow for a broad range of housing opportunities to meet the needs of the community.G2 Enable the development of affordable housing for aP2 Adopt development regulations that expand
housing choices by allowing innovative housing types, including tiny homes, acceP3 Use availaP4 Enable the creation of housing for resident individuals and families needing assistance
from social and human services pro
H-H-H-dwelling units, prefabricated homes, cohousing, cottage housing, and other housing types.H-H-LULULUAdd a Housing Element Strategy that focuses Spokane Valley on exploring the development
of a housing fund of new units and preservation of existi
Recommended Compreh
C1C2C3
Comprehensive Plan Goal
No.
Goal C:
Action
34
PAGE
the
support
to
s
.
expend
ill
DRAFT
income households.
-
currently collect
it
define how the City w
rationale for a housing tax levy
Implementation Considerations
the range of ways these funds may be used
and gauge community support
Consider needed staffing resources to
and extremely low
-
e used
valuate
Efor direct investment or to leverage additional dollars.manage a housing funds program.Draft a plan to sales and use tax funds of lowDevelop the including potential impacts to the average
household and a detailed plan for how funds would b
a
ely
ormalize
and
for affordable
d from the recently
an affordable housing
credit
These funds may be used
Description
income households.
-
grants, consortium
profit service providers and
-
income to low
-
Identify new funding sources that may fhousing fund program such as a housing trust fund including, but not limited to property tax levy,supplement funds to be receiveadopted sales and
use tax and supportive housing.for direct investments, to leverage grants, and partner with nonaffordable housing developer to support extremlow
-
, such
ion
City
housing
households
Act
to supporting
Recommended
extremely low
Develop a managed fund programas a housing trust fund,housing for moderate to income
C4
No.
Action
DRAFT
3.2 Assessment of Housing Strategy Recommendations
Goal A. Preserve affordable housing and prevent and mitigate displacement.
A1. MONITOR RENT-RESTRICTED PROPERTIES
Spokane Valley should consider a staff program that allows it to monitor its supply of rent-restricted
affordable housing. As described in the Housing Needs Analysis section, Spokane Valley has
approximately 1,663 units of rent-restricted affordable housing (see page 12). These properties have
been built and maintained at different times, with different funding types and different restrictions on
their affordability. They all have various expirations on those affordability restrictions as well.
Rationale: When affordability restrictions end, rent-restricted properties are at risk of moving to
market-rate housing, losing critical affordability for their tenants. This risk is particularly high if
properties are owned by private, for-profit companies (nonprofit affordable housing owners and
operators will typically work to keep the rents affordable). When affordability restrictions end,
properties often must be recapitalized (get new funding and loans) and/or rehabilitated to improve
their physical conditions and renew affordability limits. This funding is typically competitive and hard
to find. In tight housing markets, for-profit developers may seek properties that need rehabilitation,
finance the construction with debt, and then raise the rents to pay for the debt service, thereby
removing units from the affordable housing stock.
By monitoring rent-restricted affordable housing properties that are nearing their affordability
expiration dates, Spokane Valley can be a strong partner and advocate. With the big-picture knowledge
of rent-restricted property conditions the City may either directly work with the property owners
through a housing fund program it establishes or direct owners to its housing partners to help secure
needed funding and prevent the property from becoming market rate.
Next Steps:
Evaluate the level of effort and staffing resources needed to establish a monitoring
program or identify a community partner to lead the effort.
Ensure that Spokane Valley has a relationship with, and proper contact information for,
all rent-restricted affordable housing property owner-operators in Spokane Valley.
Work with these housing providers to ensure that data sharing is possible; consider setting
up a reporting agreement with reporting information and deadlines.
Create a database and mapping system to monitor and plan for these upcoming
expirations.
Become familiar with the various funding sources that are available to support
recapitalization and rehabilitation (see Appendix F for a list of national, state, and local
funding sources for affordable housing).
PAGE 35
DRAFT
A2. RETAIN AFFORDABLE MARKET RATE UNITS
Spokane Valley should collect key data on its rental housing properties by developing a rental housing
business license program. A good starting point would be to establish reporting requirements of
landlords and gather additional information on rental rates ranges and housing prices. This would
provide Spokane Valley with a more detailed inventory of low-cost market rentals (also called
NOAHs) across Spokane Valley.
Rationale: Because regulated affordable housing is so difficult and costly to build, most low-income
households live in unregulated,but affordable housing. This type of affordable housing is not a rent-
restricted property, but a lower-cost property that is attainable to very low-income to moderate-
income households. Because these housing units are not regulated, rents can increase by any amount
at any time, putting these households at high risk of housing insecurity and displacement.
Spokane Valley could evaluate the feasibility of implementing a monitoring program on its own or
partnering with a non-profit. This program could provide a unique, low-cost, and low-barrier way to
monitor and track the low-cost market rentals. Regular updated access to this type of data would allow
Spokane Valley to actively monitor the rents and affordability levels of rental housing as well as to
have readily available contact information for landlords when properties are listed for sale. An
expanded program could inspect and license rental housing to ensure that landlords maintain their
units consistent with livability standards.
Tracking Housing Conditions in Spokane Valley
A robust housing monitoring database would include the following. Most of these data points (such as
address, size, and landlord contact information) likely are already collected through the annual licensing
and inspection process, but the database could be more useful if additional information were gathered
from landlords. As a start, this type of information could be voluntarily supplied by landlords, with required
reporting coming as staffing and organizational capacity allows. In addition, some information (such as
code enforcement) may be collected by other city departments or through collaboration with county
agencies. The City of Tukwila and the City of Burien have established such programs.
Basic InformationAdditional Information
Propertyaddress Rents by unit type
Property size (number ofunits) Number of renters using rent assistance
programs
Year built
Typical unit amenities
Contact information for the landlord
Amenities on site
Management company (if applicable)
Number of units and properties owned by
Inspection results and schedules (with
landlord (can be provided in ranges)
particular attention to deferred
maintenance at the property)
Property violations or complaints
Next Steps:
Develop a work plan and identify staffing needs and potential partners. The work plan
should consider the feasibility of managing a rental housing licensing program and fee
structure to understand impacts for cost-recovery and staffing needs. Inspections and
licensing programs can be structured to be revenue neutral, where fees cover all
programmatic expenses.
PAGE 36
DRAFT
Work directly with the Landlord Association to identify and mitigate challenges with the
establishment of a monitoring program.
Establish criteria to identify properties at risk for displacement, such as those that have
low rents, meaningful deferred maintenance, few units (e.g., fewer than 20),
noninstitutional owners, and those that are inamenity-rich areas, near recent
redevelopments, or on high-cost land. These factors all increase the risk that a mom-and-
pop landlord might look at deferred maintenance needs and decide to sell their property
to a willing investor. With this information the City or its partners may help match high
risk properties with funds from a City housing fund or other resources available to housing
partners such as with home repair grants and loan programs supported by the state.
PAGE 37
DRAFT
A3. EVALUATE POTENTIAL IMPACTS FROM DISPLACEMENT WHEN PROPOSING LAND USE CHANGES
Figure 13 shows only one of the manytools and strategies available to monitor displacement risk.
Displacement does not happen equally across Spokane Valley, as some neighborhoods and some
communities are more likely to be forced from their homes because of economic, physical, or cultural
changes.
Spokane Valley should continue to monitor these areas as
The Displacement Vulnerability Risk
development takes place, housing market conditions change,
map in Figure 13shows one point in
time. Community-level demographic
or development opportunities continue to expand. Special
changes can occur relatively quickly.
attention should be paid to historically marginalized
The methodology for this analysis is
communities such as communities of color, immigrants, and
included in this report and can easily
non-English-speaking communities.
be updated regularly by City staff.
In addition, before land use and Comprehensive Plan updates are enacted in areas with high
displacement risk, Spokane Valley should reassess risk and proactively engage with the communities
where such changes will be proposed. Spokane Valley should integrate this risk assessment with its
approval criteria in SVMC 17.80.140.H for Comprehensive Plan amendments and develop safeguards
in response to its findings.
Rationale: With a nuanced understanding of the areas that might have the most vulnerability to
physical, economic, and cultural displacement, Spokane Valley can employ its anti-displacement
recommendations in a geographically focused way. Many of the tenants living in unregulated
affordable properties will be at risk if their building is purchased and rents rise. In addition, Spokane
Valley-led changes in zoning allowances to allow more intense housing development can increase the
chances that households vulnerable to displacement will see increased displacement pressures.
Consequently, displacement risk should be assessed before rezones and safeguards are developed in
response to the findings.
Next Steps:
Create an update process for identifying and assessing key factors associated with
displacement risk, using the most up-to-date data.
Focus on historically marginalized communities such as communities of color,
immigrants, and non-English-speaking communities.
Spokane Valley could choose to have more targeted outreach in these areas with high
displacement risk to better understand the community’s desired outcomes relative to
proposed zone changes.
PAGE 38
DRAFT
A4. PROVIDE MORE TENANT SUPPORT
Spokane Valley should explore additional tools and practices to strengthen tenant support. This
recommendation suggests working with community organizations to provide a broad array of
community-based supports and resources for tenants and renters. The City, either directly or with its
housing partners, could better support tenants in accessing services by providing an accessible
resource to understand legal protections through the state’s Residential Landlord-Tenant Act (RCW
59.18). Additionally, a responsive code enforcement department for those rentals that are in disrepair
or unfit for habitation when landlords are nonresponsive may also help.
Rationale: Direct resources that support residents in Spokane Valley will help minimize and mitigate
the effects of displacement pressures. At the federal level, the Federal Fair Housing Act prohibits
housing discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status and disability.
(Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended in
Organizations such as the Fair Housing
1988 (42 U.S.C. §3601 et seq.) and Civil Rights Act of 1866
Center of Washingtonserve as a resource
(Title 42 of the United States Code sections 1981 and
for jurisdictions implementing projects
1982)). Tenants need to know their federal and state tenant
that use federal funds to affirmatively
further fair housing (AFFH). Local Housing
rights and feel empowered to maintain their housing,
Solutions is another resource that
particularly for households belonging to marginalized
connects housing strategies with AFFH.
communities (such as immigrant and refugee communities,
communities of color, and low-income communities).
Next Steps:
Spokane Valleycould establish, update, or strengthen resources available to tenants involving:
Low-barrier application screening (e.g., Fair Choice Housing or Ban the Box efforts).
Create tenants’ rights and education resources (e.g., funding for RentWellprograms).
Require language translation of tenant information to increase the education available to
immigrant and refugee communities.
PAGE 39
DRAFT
A5. PROVIDE HOMEOWNER RESOURCE ASSISTANCE
Spokane Valley should work with community organizations to explore and expand on a range of
homeownership assistance programs. There are many aspects of homeownership assistance that
Spokane Valleycould consider supporting through partnerships with regional organizations.
Rationale: A major way to mitigate displacement is by increasing the homeownership rate, particularly
for low-income households, households of color (who have historically lower homeownership rates
than white households), as well as immigrants and refugees.Displacement often does not affect
homeowners, in large part because they have fixed mortgage payments that cannot change without
warning (taxes do change but they are a small portion of overall homeownership housing costs). In
addition, because lenders size a mortgage to a buyer’s income and ability to pay, homeowners are less
susceptible to cost burdening and housing insecurity, absent a sudden change in income. Because
homeowners are largely shielded from larger economic and housing market changes, encouraging
homeownership is one of the best ways to prevent physical and economic displacement. It cannot,
however, prevent cultural displacement.
Next Steps:
Homeownership down payment assistance programs can be challenging to maintain and can only help
a limited number of households. Many homeowner and homebuyer resources require fundingthrough
grant programs such as the Washington State Housing Trust Fund grants and loans or HUD’s HOME
programs managed by Commerce. Spokane Valley’s role can be to enhance its partnerships with
regional organizations already working in these areas and explore avenues to educate and provide
resources for prospective homeowners. Areas where the City can provide additional resource support
include:
Hosting homebuyer education (classes educating renters on the home buying process).
Foreclosure assistance and counseling.
Energy assistance and counseling.
Provide resources on cooperative ownership housing models (information and guidance
for tenants looking to buy out a landlord and establish a cooperative ownership structure).
Provide resources on community land trust models (which provide shared equity as home
prices appreciate, while still maintaining long-term affordability).
Down payment assistance (funding would have to be identified, and income thresholds
would have to be carefully considered to establish eligibility criteria).
Homeownership weatherization and rehabilitation grants.
PAGE 40
DRAFT
Goal B. Increase market-rate and affordable housing supply throughout the city
but focused on zones that support multifamily and missing-middle housing types.
B1. MODIFY THE SVMC TO ENCOURAGE PRODUCTION OF TOWNHOMES AND COTTAGES
Townhouses and cottages are permitted under the supplemental use regulations in the R-4, MFR, MU,
and CMU zoning districts. The Neighborhood Commercial zoning district also permits townhouses.
Spokane Valley defines a townhouse development as one where between three and six attached single-
family dwelling units are developed side by side, and a cottage development as one where small,
detached, single-family dwelling units are developed as a group clustered around a common area.
A limited number of townhomes have been developed in the City, and no cottage projects have been
completed to date. This action recommends modifications to density requirements and minimum lot
sizes in the R-4 zone, and allowing unit-lot subdivisions to improve development feasibility for
townhome and cottage developments. Unit-lot subdivision defines boundary lines and use areas within
a larger "parent" parcel for the purpose of defining and creating individual sellable lots. This is
primarily used when multiple buildings are designed to fit on a single original lot such as for townhome
and cottage developments. Site development standards apply only the parent site as a whole. New
buildings are on individual lots allowing for fee simple transfer to new owners. Many cities have
adopted code to support this type of subdivision including Spokane, Wenatchee, Arlington, Seattle,
and Bellevue to name a few.
The following recommended SVMC modifications would improve development feasibility and
encourage the development of more missing-middle housing for moderate-income and middle-
income households.
Increase the residential density in the R-4 zone from ten du/ac to 15 du/ac.
Decrease the minimum lot size for townhomes in the R-4 zone from 4,300 square feet to
2,000 square feet.
Reduce the building setback and open space requirements for cottage developments for
projects that provide affordable housing.
Allow unit-lot subdivisions.
Rationale: The City already accommodates townhouses and cottages as permitted uses in the R-4
zone, so modifications that help encourage these product types are likely to be more palatable
politically than extending these changes to other residential zones. The regulatory review in Appendix
C highlights regulatory barriers that limit townhome development. The development feasibility
analysis in Appendix E found that the current code results in residual land values that fall at or below
average land prices. Further, for lots with existing homes, the development economics become even
more challenging. The analysis of the modifications found that developers likely will respond
positively by producing townhome units in R-4. Because of challenging economics, cottage projects
are not as common as townhomes. Reducing setbacks and open space requirements for cottage
projects with affordable housing improves development economics and will encourage more missing-
middle development.
PAGE 41
DRAFT
Next Steps:
Review potential actions and draft regulations to revise the SVMC.
Evaluate the potential impacts from displacement of residents in existing NOAH single-
family rental homes and consider the potential benefits and resource costs/impacts to
implement a relocation fee program. The fee would be paid by developers to the City’s
housing fund for supporting tenant relocation elsewhere in Spokane Valley.
PAGE 42
DRAFT
B2. ADOPT A MFTE PROGRAM
Spokane Valley should consider establishing a 12-year MFTE program in mixed-use and multifamily
zones that are transit served. Spokane Valley should consider establishing a MFTE program with the
12-year affordability requirements to capture value from the financial incentive. This MFTE program
should also be packaged with modifications to density standards.
With the COVID-19 pandemic hurting cities’ economic and fiscal outlooks, special consideration will
have to be given to the impact of an MFTE program on Spokane Valley’s tax revenues.
Rationale: Tax abatements positively impact the feasibility of projects where market-rate projects are
feasible and can help cross-subsidize the affordable units. When considering a MFTE program, careful
consideration of the temporary loss of tax revenue from the new
When a project is approved under
affordable units against the potential attraction of new
a multifamily tax exemption
investment. MFTE can help support increased housing
program, the value of eligible
production by increasing the feasibility of multifamily and
housing improvements is exempted
mixed-use development. If MFTE were to be applied in areas
. Property tax
from property taxes
revenue is still collected on
planned for frequent transit, such as the Sprague, it could
remainder of the project.
increase the development feasibility of the existingMFR and
mixed-use zones.
The current development standards in the MFR zone create marginally feasible projects, but the
MFTE program with the 12-year tax exemption will add new units at 80 percent of AMI or less that
would not have been developed otherwise. The 12-year MFTE program specifically increases the
supply of affordable housing, and this incentive could be paired with an increased allowed density
from 22 du/ac currently allowed in the MFR zone up to 40 du/ac. Such an incentive would improve
the development feasibility of projects adding density. Multifamily development in the CMU and MU
zones is considered commercial and has no density limits.Project in these mixed-use zones will not
need the density bonus; however, the MFTE program will improve project performance and provide
units affordable to moderate income households.
Next Steps:
Explore the programmatic implications for the City to create and manage a 12-year MFTE
program for projects delivering at least 10-units to support both housing development and
new affordable housing. The City could refer to other city’s MFTE programs such as the
City of Bellingham’s (https://cob.org/services/planning/development/mfte).
To weigh the fiscal impacts and potential benefits associated with increased housing
production (market and affordable units) study the potential impacts to the City’s tax base.
Specific to Spokane Valley is that it has not taken its property tax increases for 12 years,
so the only increase in property tax is from new construction. An MFTE program that
reduces tax revenue from the affordable units in new developments would have an
increased effect for the City’s revenues compared to cities who take annual increases.
Conduct additional outreach with developers, impacted residents, and other stakeholders
to determine the best approach to land use changes. Ensure that potential displacement is
evaluated alongside any proposed land use density changes.
PAGE 43
DRAFT
Map out the process to adopt a MFTE program including the creation of targeted areas
(RCW 84.14.040) that are designated urban centers. The creation of urban centers requires
a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Urban center means a center designated as such in the
land use element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. An urban center is an identifiable
district containing business establishments, adequate public facilities, and a mixture of uses
and activities, where residents may obtain a variety of products and services (RCW
84.14.010(18)).
PAGE 44
DRAFT
B3. CREATE INCENTIVES TO PRODUCE ADDITIONAL MARKET RATE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Several tools for incentivizing market rate and affordable housing may be adopted by Spokane Valley.
These incentives provide an exchange where a city offers a benefit to a proposed project such as a
density bonus, a mechanism for reducing project costs like reduced parking, or a means to streamline
the permitting process. In exchange,the developer agreesto provide a certain percentage of affordable
units for a certain number of years. These incentives could be limited to certain zones or overlay
zones. Density bonus programs may also allow developers to contribute to a housing fund in lieu of
building the units themselves. The following incentives are recommended strategies to increase
affordable housing production (see Appendix E the analysis summary):
This HAP recommends modifying the permitted R-4 density from 10 du/acto 15 du/ac
to encourage townhome and cottage development. This strategy recommends increasing
the modified permitted density from 15 du/ac to 22 du/ac for townhome and cottage
developments if 20 percent of the units are set aside for households earning 80 percent
or less of AMI. These units would also be eligible for the MFTE incentive.
Increase the allowed density in the MFR zone from 22 du/ac to 40 du/ac if 20 percent of
the units are set aside for households earning 80 percent or less of the AMI. These units
would also be eligible for the MFTE incentive.
Consider a fee-in-lieu program for projects seeking the additional density but choosing to
forego providing affordable housing on site. These funds would be managed by Spokane
Valley’s housing fund program to support affordable housing elsewhere in the City.
Waive up to 80 percent of impact fees for projects that provide affordable units targeted
toward households earning 60 percent or less of the AMI.
Rationale: The analysis in Appendix Efound that the development economics create a strong
motivation for the development community to respond positively to these incentives. Pairing the
density bonus with affordable housing requirements provides housing choices for a broader range of
household incomes.
Next Steps:
Conduct additional studies and solicit input to weigh public benefit of affordable units
with lost property tax and sales tax revenues.
Evaluate a fee-in-lieu program to access the density bonus in exchange for funds that
Spokane Valley may use to support affordable housing development and preservation.
PAGE 45
DRAFT
B4. ADOPT A PLANNED ACTION ORDINANCE(S) IN SUBAREAS WITH TRANSIT INVESTMENT OR WHERE
LARGE, MIXED-USE PHASED DEVELOPMENTS CAN BE BUILT
Planned actions, which are authorized under SEPA (RCW 43.21C.440 and WAC 197-11-164 through
-172), provide more detailed environmental analysis during an areawide planning phase rather than
during the permit review process. As a result, future projects in the designated planned action area do
not require SEPA determinations at the time of permit application if they are consistent with the type
of development, growth and traffic assumptions, and mitigation measures studied in the
environmental impact statement or the threshold determination.
Rationale: A planned action ordinance would help streamline the development process for projects
in the planned area.Planned actions may help Spokane Valley increase its housing supply and add to
its low- and middle-income housing stock near transit and jobs. Transit oriented development around
Spokane Transit Authority (STA) investments also encourages more ridership helping to justify its
investment.
Next Steps:
Administering the planned action ordinance process can be an expensive endeavor for the
City. It should estimate the resources to develop needed to implement a planned action
ordinanceand identify potential grants or funding partners such as the STA that may help
offset these costs.
Identify potential subareas for a planned action. Two areas for consideration may be a
portion of the Sprague Avenue corridor between Havana and Pines and the station area
at Mirabeau Point.
Coordinate with the STA on its plans for future station areas and discuss the concept of
partnering with housing developers to provide affordable housing its surface parking lots
in a transit-oriented development.
PAGE 46
DRAFT
GOAL C. INCREASE HOUSING OPTIONS AND HOUSING CHOICE.
C1. UPDATE REGULATIONS FOR ADUS
ADUs are currently permitted in all Spokane Valley zoning districts except for MFR. These units are
regulated by SVMC 19.40.030, which contains the siting, building, parking, and ownership
requirements for developing an ADU. Several recommended revisions to this section could increase
the pace of ADU development. Appendix G provides additional background on ADUs.Spokane
Valley could consider the following:
Eliminate or reduce the off-street parking requirement for an ADU if the owner can
provide evidence it already has enough parking area to meet this requirement. Adding off-
street parking space to the existing parking requirements can make development of an
ADU cost prohibitive and physically impossible.
Remove the ownership requirement for developing an ADU. There are over 4,850 single-
family homes in Spokane Valley for which the taxbills are mailed to different addresses.
These homes are likely rental properties and would not be allowed to have an ADU.
Generally, requiring owner-occupancy of one of the units can negatively impact ADU
construction. Some cities have removed such requirements or has modified them—for
instance,the City of Renton exempts owner occupancy requirements in exchange for 60-
percent-AMI affordability.
Spokane Valley should explore whether there are feasible opportunities to relax the size
limitations to allow for more flexibility and smaller units that could result from the
conversion of garage spaces.
Relaxing the ADU setback requirements (particularly the side and rear) to five feetcould
make ADU projects more feasible, particularly on lots with irregular or elongated shapes.
Lower barriers to allow homeowners to consider developing ADUs and consider reducing
costs by allowing strategic permitting fee waivers for affordable dwellings.
Increasing the density to allow for two ADUs per lot could be helpful, particularly if
Spokane Valley sees increasing demand for ADU housing options. Jurisdictions will not
see large numbers of ADUs being constructed until the market rents reach a level that
makes development feasible.
Monitor: Cities may need to address short-term vacation rental use of ADUs and spillover
effects in terms of parking, service, and neighborhood impacts.
Rationale: The City recognizes that approximately 30 ADUs have been formally developed in
Spokane Valley since 2012 based on available permit data. These recommendations are intended to
encourage the development of ADUs. These units help to broaden housing diversity and choices in a
wider range of neighborhoods,since they can be offered at a more affordable cost because of their
small size. ADUs also offer additional options for seniors and younger populations, single-person
households, etc. The AARP surveyed people 50 and older and found thatthey would consider creating
an ADU to provide a home for a loved one in need of care (84 percent), provide housing for relatives
or friends (83 percent), feel safer by having someone living nearby (64 percent), have a space for guests
(69 percent), increase the value of their home (67 percent), create a place for a caregiver to stay (60
PAGE 47
DRAFT
8
percent), and earn extra income from renting to a tenant (53 percent). Finally, ADUs can blend into
single-family neighborhoods and be a source of added income to help pay housing expenses.
Next Steps:
Evaluate the possible impacts from modifying the ADU regulations around parking and
ownership requirements.
Revise ADU development standards in the SVMC.
Eliminate or reduce ADU-related permit fees.
Established approved ADU models to expedite permitting.
8
Source: AARP Home and Community Preferences Survey, 2018.
PAGE 48
DRAFT
C2. PERMIT AND CLARIFY TINY HOME REGULATIONS
Tiny houses are one way to provide a housing option for individuals and households who desire
privacy and smaller home size but prefer single-family home amenities. Tiny homes, sometimes
referred to as micro-homes, are small, single-family
Micro-home (i.e. Tiny homes)
dwellings, typically 80 to 200 square feet but almost always
vs Micro housing units
less than 500 square feet and have a kitchen and a bathroom.
Micro housing units typically are very
Appendix G provides additional background on tiny home
small dwelling units in multi-family
considerations.
buildings in which all living space other
than a bathroom is contained in a single
room (usually under 300 square feet).
Until recently, state law, building codes, and local
Generally, the units share common
regulations have presented numerous legal and logistical
kitchen, laundry, and gathering spaces.
barriers to siting and building these very small, detached
Micro-housing in theory could be less
dwellings. In 2019, the state legislature passed ESSB 5383,
expensive than a standard 1-bedroom
apartment but this is not always the
which updated state law to enable the development of tiny
case. This type of housing usually is
houses or tiny house communities throughout the state.
targeted to a very specific population—
This law defined tiny houses and mandated that the building
person households typically in
single-
code council write building codes for tiny homes by the end
their 20s and 30s either in college or
of 2019. Washington State has adopted Appendix Q Tiny
working.
Houses which relates to tiny homes on a foundation.
Spokane Valley can do the following to study and improve its code and policies on tiny houses:
Add definitions for tiny houses to differentiate them from trailers, manufactured homes,
and recreational vehicles. This includes clarifying that only tiny houses on foundations (not
on wheels) are allowed.
Create a permit pathway for Binding Site Plans that allow siting of tiny homes (such as in
a manufactured-home park).
Consider modifying the land use matrices to specify where tiny houses or tiny house
villages would be permitted or conditionally allowed. In general, review the zoning code
to identify potential hurdles associated with tiny home development. Tiny house village
communities include property that can be rented or held by other others for the placement
of tiny houses. These can also provide transitional housing for those experiencing
homelessness (these villages have been built in Olympia and Seattle).
Allow tiny homes, set on a foundation, to be utilized as a detached ADU to lower
construction costs.
Analyze the potential for the updated International Residential Code (IRC) with Appendix
Q (2018) modified to be included in the building code to incorporate tiny house building
standards. This IRC defines a tiny house as a dwelling smaller than 400 square feet
excluding lofts. The Washington state legislature (via ESB 5383) recognizes that the IRC
has issued tiny house building code standards in Appendix Q which can provide a basis
for the standards requested within this act. This is important since the building code can
be the most significant hurdle for legally constructing a tiny home.
PAGE 49
DRAFT
Rationale: Tiny houses are one way to provide a housing option for individuals and households who
desire privacy but do not want or cannot afford a large,single-family home. They can also be used as
a way of providing housing for people experiencing homelessness.
Next Steps:
Review and modify land use and building codes to permit tiny homes in specific zones.
Update site plan approval criteria to account for unique site needs of tiny houses. This
would benefit from a process soliciting input from tiny home developers. As a first step,
the City should solicit input or convene a focus group or working group including tiny
house owners and developers, city planners, and city building code experts to review how
tiny homes would fit in the existing site plan approval process and identify regulatory
barriers and possible areas of flexibility related to the use of the IRC.
Because a negative perception of tiny homes may present hurdles, develop material
summarizing the rationale and benefits for this housing type.
PAGE 50
DRAFT
C3. COORDINATE WITH EXISTING SYSTEMS OF CARE FOR EFFECTIVE HOMELESS SERVICES
IMPLEMENTATION
Homelessness is a housing challenge in Spokane Valley. The Washington state Growth Management
Act requires that communities plan for all economic segments of the population. This strategy
addresses the very lowest income segments by recommending approaches to supporting shelters and
transitional housing to help stabilize these households as they move into permanent housing. There
are several ways that cities can address homelessness. The Homelessness & Housing Toolkit for Cities
produced by Association of Washington Cities and Municipal Research and Services Center (2020)
provides some resources and case studies.
Rationale: Spokane Valley has identified a need to include goals and strategies related to homelessness
in the current Comprehensive Plan update process. While the Comprehensive Plan includes goals and
strategies related to affordable housing, it does not currently address homelessness. This strategy
provides recommendations for supporting the very lowest income segments of Spokane Valley.
Next Steps:
Include a land use and housing goal in the Comprehensive Plan that addresses Spokane
Valley’s intention to supporting transitional housing.
Identify best practices and potential siting requirements for shelters and transitional
housing such as tiny home villages, including, but not limited to, land owned by the public
or a religious institution.
Actively engage with existing service providers, faith-based organizations and regional
bodies to coordinate housing resources.
Consider Spokane Valley’s role in the countywide approach to addressing homelessness
and evaluate the benefits and impacts from managing its portion of the real estate excise
tax fees to support the homeless community as it seeks to transition to stability.
PAGE 51
DRAFT
C4. DEVELOP A HOUSING FUND PROGRAM
A Spokane Valley housing fund program could serve three functions: (1) being a resource for the
development community seeking input on funding options; (2) managing active funding resources
such as Spokane Valley’s recently adopted sales and use tax funds for affordable and supportive
housing or other potential future funding sources; and (3) collaborating, educating and advocating on
new projects, initiatives, and the pursuit of new funding sources.
Rationale: A housing fund program will help facilitate more housing options at the moderate-to low-
income levels. There is one active funding sources this program can manage plus several others it
could help Spokane Valley evaluate and pursue. This program could also help manage monitoring
activities identified in Strategies A1 through A3.
In the near term, this program would manage the sales and use tax fund for affordable and supportive
housing. Spokane Valley has estimated the annual increase of funds from this program to be
approximately $178,000. These funds can be used for acquiring, rehabilitating, constructing, or
operating and maintaining new affordable housing units. These funds cannot be used to fund
construction or operation of a homeless shelter, but instead are reserved for longer-term low income,
affordable, and supportive housing. Spokane Valley can use these funds independently, or they can be
pooled in partnership with funds from other regional organizations to pay for a larger regional
affordable housing development.
Spokane Valley may consider two other funding sources that may support a housing fund program
promote housing choice and increase housing options: Homeless Housing Assistance Act (HHAA)
funds and a city-wide property tax levy (RCW 84.52.105). To begin receiving HHAA funding from
recording fees, Spokane Valley would need to take responsibility for homeless housing within its
borders by forwarding a resolution to the Spokane County Board of Commissioners stating its
intention and commitment to operate a separate program. Spokane Valley must then comply with the
same requirements as Spokane County and the City of Spokane under the HHAA. Based on 2019
recording fee collections, this program could generate approximately $657,750 per year.
The property tax levy requires voter approval and would place an additional tax ofup to $0.50 per
thousand dollars assessed for up to ten years. For a home valued at $300,000,this levy would increase
the household property tax burden by $150. Funds must go toward financing affordable housing for
households earning below 50 percent MFI. Based on current tax rolls, this could generate up to
approximately $4.7 million per year. While these taxpayer supported funds could be leveraged to a
range of affordable housing developments and initiatives, passing a levy can be very challenging. Even
with a well-defined rationale communicated to the public, taxpayers may still not support an additional
tax.
A complete list of Washington state, local, and federal affordable housing funding sources can be
found in Appendix F. A Spokane Valley program can coordinate with other regional housing providers
and offer developers resources when seeking tax credit or bonding funding from the Washington State
Housing Finance Commission as well as resources from Commerce-led funding programs. These
funding sources are competitive statewide.
PAGE 52
DRAFT
Next Steps:
Identify and define the housing fund programincluding sources of revenue, programmatic
priorities, and staffing resources needed in order to justify its creation.
Evaluate the resources needed to staff the program.
Ensure that its focus is on supporting the development and preservation of low- to
moderate-income households in areas of Spokane Valley that are served by transit or
where households are at greater risk for displacement.
PAGE 53
UBC$6
DRAFT
4 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
In the coming years, implementing the HAP will require Spokane Valley to balance and coordinate
its pursuit of actions, funding, and partnerships with its other policy and programmatic priorities.
This section outlines an implementation process that will improve success with advancing this HAP’s
recommendations.
4.1 Develop and Assign Work Programs
The city’s implementation of the 13 recommendations in this HAP will require varying levels of effort.
Each recommendation will require different levels of partnership and staff time andwill function at
varying scales (working at the property, neighborhood, or citywide level).
Each of these recommendations is within Spokane Valley’s control, but work will span departments
and involve meaningful contributions from stakeholders such as the City Council, Planning
Commission, residents, homeowners, neighborhood associations, advocates, developers (both
affordable and market rate), and many others. The city will need to assess the varying levels of effort,
assign staff, and examine technological solutions to develop work programs that can help complete
the needed analysis and initiate important conversations with these stakeholders.
It is important to have a HAP that balances different housing needs among its current and future
residents. This HAP includes targeted actions to help compensate for where the supply is tight and to
help those who are underserved or where demand is growing. The recommendations also address the
need for both subsidized and non-subsidized market rate housing. Figure 17 provides an overview of
each action, focusing on their impacts to Spokane Valley’s key goals of increasing housing affordability
and lowering displacement risk.
PAGE 54
55
9
termterm
term, term, term, term, term,
--
-----
PAGE
Timing
ongoingongoingongoingongoingongoing
ShortShort
Proposed
ShortShortShortShortShort
DRAFT
))
AMIAMI
taff timetaff timetaff timetaff timetaff time
Existing sExisting sExisting sExisting staff timeExisting staff timeExisting sExisting s
income (above 120%income (above 120%
Potential Operational
--
ighigh
Funding and Staff Resources HH
))
years, completed by 2026 | Ongoing
5
-
AMIAMI
120%120%
or or or
term: 4
--
-
.
income (80income (80
--
Division or Division or
CoordinatorCoordinator
iddle CoordinatorCoordinator iddle Coordinator
Lead/ Partners
Implementation
MM
Community partnerCommunity partnerCommunity partnerCommunity partnerCommunity partner
Housing & Homeless Housing & Homeless Housing & Homeless Housing & Homeless Housing & Homeless
Economic Development Economic Development
)
HighHigh
AMI
80%80% AMI)e
--
ementation Considerations
3 years, completed by 2024 | Long
-
income (60income (60
--
Needed term: 2
-
AdministrativeAdministrativeAdministrativeAdministrativeAdministrativeAdministrativeAdministrativ
Type of Action
oderate
MModerate
ModerateModerate
0% AMI)
LowLow
then…
housing monitoring
income (below 60% AMI)income (below 6
-
--
LowLow
task, task, then…
identify the potential for a
unding sources that are
affing resources needed to
restricted affordable housing
term: 1 year, start after plan approval | Medium
-
-
the first the first
and
Short
Restricted Properties
-
nt
Task Description
the creation of a rental
and mapping system to monitor that flags at
ta sharing relationship with housing providers.
. Summary of Recommended Actions and Impl
7
challenges with the establishment of a monitoring
Proposed timing description:
Household Incomes Targeted: Ability to Reduce Displacement:Household Incomes Targeted: Ability to Reduce Displacement:
9
If City chooses to advance past If City chooses to advance past
Action A1: Monitor ReAction A2: Retain Affordable Market Rate Units
Document the level of effort and stestablish a monitoring program community partner to lead the effort. Creation of contact list for all rentproperties and property owner/managers in
Spokane Valley.Establish a daProvide them with a reporting agreement with reporting information and deadlines.Create a databaserisk regulated properties of and plan for these upcoming
expirations.Develop a shareable database of favailable to support recapitalization and rehabilitation.Develop a work plan for and identify staffing needs and potential partners for
program. Work directly with the Landlord Association to identify and mitigate program.
Goal A: Preservation of Affordable Housing and Displacement Mitigation
Figure 1
56
9
term
term, term, term, term, term, term, term,
-
-------
PAGE
Timing
ongoingongoingongoingongoingongoingongoingongoing
Short
Proposed
ShortShortShortShortShortShortShort
DRAFT
))
AMIAMI
taff timetaff timetaff timetaff timetaff time
Existing sExisting sExisting sExisting sExisting s
City housing fund
income (above 120%income (above 120%
Potential Operational
--
1.0 FTE to manage program.1.0 FTE to manage program.1.0 FTE to manage program.
---
ighigh
000
Program fees and/or City fundsProgram fees and/or City funds
Funding and Staff Resources HH
Program fees, City funds and/or
)
AMI
120%120% AMI)
or or
--
DevelopmentDevelopment
income (80income (80
DivisionDivision
--
Division or
CoordinatorCoordinatorCoordinator
CoordinatorCoordinator iddle
Lead/ Partners ommunity partner
Implementation
MMiddle
Community partnerCCommunity partner
Housing & Homeless Housing & Homeless Housing & Homeless Housing & Homeless Housing & Homeless
Economic Development Economic Economic
HighHigh
80% AMI)80% AMI)
--
income (60income (60
--
Needed
Legislative
AdministrativeAdministrativeAdministrativeAdministrativeAdministrativeAdministrativeAdministrativeAdministrative
Type of Action
ModerateModerate
ModerateModerate
)
MI)
.
rom Proposed Land Use Changes
in
tenants to
from a City
immigrant
risk for
properties
to
LowLow
income (below 60% AMIincome (below 60% A
risk
--
-
funds
LowLow
high
based form for
eligible for resources. The
-
ng how potential policy
nt of database, system for
, update and maintain a GIS
in these areas with high
urces available to housing partners
accurately translated in multiple
Task Description
date data
-
to
-
.
due to property disinvestment and/or increasing
kit for eligible landlords of
-
Provide More Tenant Support
to increase the education available to
:
that identifies the areas with the greatest
4
.
review standard for assessi
targeted outreach
Household Incomes Targeted: Ability to Reduce Displacement:Household Incomes Targeted: Ability to Reduce Displacement:
sing the most up
stablish criteria to identify properties
Action A3: Evaluate Potential Displacement Impacts fAction A
Implement work plan, informed by input from Landlord Association, including establishmecollecting information from landlords and tenants, and a potential fee system.Elist of properties
identified would be flagged as at displacementland values.Create a toolneed of upgrades to assist with resourcing housing fund or other resoUweb mapdisplacement risk. Create an update
process for maintaining the web mapConduct displacement risk to better understand the community’s desired outcomes relative to proposed zone changes.Create achanges may impact housing
in neighborhoods facing displacement riskCreate a resources webpage that is updated regularly for tenant information that islanguagesand refugee communities.Related to Action A1, provide
a websubmit comments on the condition of their housing unit for monitoring trends.
57
910
9 term
term, term,
-
--
term
termterm
-
--
PAGE
Timing
ongoingongoing
Timing
ShortLongShort
Proposed Proposed
Medium
MediumMedium
DRAFT
))
AMIAMI
taff timetaff timetaff time
grant fundinggrant funding
Existing sExisting sExisting s
City housing fund
income (above 120%income (above 120%
Potential Operational Potential Operational
--
1.0 FTE to manage program.
-
ighigh
Existing staff time, Potential for Existing staff time, Potential for
0
Funding and Staff Resources H Funding and Staff Resources H
Program fees, City funds and/or
5 years, completed by 2026 | Ongoing
-
ess
120% AMI)120% AMI)
term: 4
or or or or
--
-
income (80income (80
--
Coordinator
CoordinatorCoordinatorCoordinatorCoordinator
Lead/ PartnersLead/ Partners
Planning Division
Implementation Implementation
MiddleMiddle
Division, Building &
Community partnerCommunity partnerCommunity partnerCommunity partner
Housing & Homeless Housing & Homeless Housing & Homeless Housing & HomelHousing & Homeless
Economic Development
s
HighHigh
80% AMI)80% AMI)
--
3 years, completed by 2024 | Long
-
.
income (60income (60
--
term: 2
NeededNeeded
-
ate
AdministrativeAdministrativeAdministrativeAdministrativeAdministrativeAdministrative
Type of Action Type of Action
ModerModerate
ModerateModerate
.
to
-
.
in
a
models
from a City
properties
to
focused in
LowLow
Assistance
income (below 60% AMI)income (below 60% AMI)
re assistance and risk
middle housing types
--
-
-
funds
’s existing or new
LowLow
that may result from
and draft regulations
high
already
oreclosu
Resource
rate and affordable housing supply throughout the city but focused on zones that support
community land trust
term: 1 year, start after plan approval | Medium
-
homes
-
or to encourage production of townhomes and cottage
Short
organizations
through the City
SVMC
potential actionsincome unit production.
Task DescriptionTask Description
-
family rental
the
-
tifamily and missing
kit for eligible landlords of
-
Modify
and counseling in partnership with regional
: Provide Homeowner
5
1:
mul
B
: Increase market
recommended
B
Proposed timing description:
Household Incomes Targeted: Ability to Reduce Displacement:Household Incomes Targeted: Ability to Reduce Displacement:
9
10
artnerships with regional
xplore avenues to educate and provide resources for
Action AAction
Eprospective homeowners pproviding homeownership assistanceHost home ownership seminars and fcounseling organizations. Host or collaborate with a partner organization to createhomeownership
resource webpage for prospective buyers, for distressed homeowners, or for developers seeking information on cooperative ownership housing Create a toolneed of upgrades to assist with
resourcing housing fund or other resources available to housing partnersReview revise the SVMC.Evaluate the potential impacts from displacement of residents in existing NOAH singleregulation
modifications and weigh against potential new lowincome and moderate
Goal
58
10
9 termtermtermtermterm
termtermterm
term,
--------
-
term
-
term to term to term to
---
PAGE
ongoing
Timing
Short
Proposed
ShortShortShort
MediumMediumMediumMediumMedium
mediummediummedium
Medium
DRAFT
)
AMI
to evaluate.
taff time
grant fundinggrant fundinggrant fundinggrant fundinggrant funding
Existing staff timeExisting staff timeExisting staff timeExisting staff time
income (above 120% AMI)income (above 120%
Potential Operational
1.0 FTE to manage program
--
-
1.0 FTE to manage program.
xisting staff time, Potential for
-
igh
Existing s
EExisting staff time, Potential for Existing staff time, Potential for Existing staff time, Potential for Existing staff time, Potential for
0
Program fees and/or City funds0.5
Funding and Staff Resources HighH
% AMI)
120% AMI)120
--
inator
Housing & Housing & Housing &
Building &
DevelopmentDevelopment
& &&
income (80income (80
DivisionDivision
--
Coord
Lead/ Partners
Planning DivisionPlanning DivisionPlanning DivisionPlanning Division
Implementation
MiddleMiddle
Division, Building & Division, Building & Division, Division, Building &
Housing & Homeless
DivisionDivisionDivision
Homeless CoordinatorHomeless Coordinator
Homeless Coordinator
Economic Development Economic Development Economic Development Economic Development Economic Development Economic Economic Economic Development Economic Development
HighHigh
/
80% AMI)80% AMI)
--
income (60income (60
--
Needed
LegislativeLegislativeLegislative
AdministrativeAdministrativeAdministrativeAdministrativeAdministrativeAdministrativeAdministrative
Administrative
Type of Action
ModerateModerate
ModerateModerate
.
to to
.
LowLow
income (below 60% AMI)income (below 60% AMI)
program
--
LowLow
MFTE program
ee would be paid by
F
year
-
to support affordable housing
Program
Task Description
potential new affordable and market
MFTE
and programmatic implications and programmatic implications
l outreach with developers, impacted
lieu program to access the density bonus in
-
cess
tential benefits and resource costs/impacts to
, and manage a 12, and manage the incentive
in
impacts and household displacement.
-
housing program
reate incentives to produce additional market rate and affordable housing
dopt a
AC
nd other stakeholders to determine the best
scal impacts and potential benefits associated with
resulting from the recommended incentives against
adoptadopt
2: 3:
BB
public benefit of
units
Household Incomes Targeted: Ability to Reduce Displacement:Household Incomes Targeted: Ability to Reduce Displacement:
hange for
onsider the po
tudy the fi
Action Action
Cimplement a relocation fee program. developers to the City’s housing fund for supporting tenant relocation elsewhere in Spokane Valley.Seek code adoption and related Comprehensive Plan
AmendmentsMap out the process develop, Sincreased housing production (market and affordable units).Conduct additional outreach with developers, impacted residents, aapproach to land
use changes.Seek code adoption and related Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsStudy rate potential fiscalEvaluate a feeexcdevelopment and preservation.Map out the prodevelop, Conduct additionaresidents,
and other stakeholders to determine the best approach to land use changes.
59
9
10
11
9 termtermtermterm
----
term to
term
term
term
-
-
-
-
PAGE
Timing
long
Timing
LongShort
Proposed Proposed
MediumMediumMediumMedium
Medium
DRAFT
))
AMIAMI
funded
City
grant fundinggrant fundinggrant fundinggrant fundinggrant fundinggrant funding
ng staff time, Potential for
0.5 FTE to support process,
-
income (above 120%income (above 120%
Potential Operational Potential Operational
--
ighigh
Existing staff time, Potential for Existing staff time, Potential for Existing staff time, Potential for ExistiExisting staff time, Potential for Existing staff time, Potential for
0.25
Funding and Staff Resources H Funding and Staff Resources H
use phased developments can be built
-
)
5 years, completed by 2026 | Ongoing
-
AMI
120%120% AMI)
term: 4
--
-
uilding &
ing Division
income (80income (80
DivisionDivisionDivision
--
iddle
Lead/ PartnersLead/ Partners
Planning DivisionPlanning DivisionPlanning DivisionPlann
Implementation Implementation
MMiddle
Division, Building & Division, BDivision, Building & Division, Building &
Economic Development Economic Development Economic Development Economic Development Economic Development Economic Development Economic Development
HighHigh
80% AMI)80% AMI)
--
3 years, completed by 2024 | Long
-
income (60income (60
--
NeededNeeded term: 2
LegislativeLegislative
-
AdministrativeAdministrativeAdministrativeAdministrativeAdministrative
Type of Action Type of Action
ModerateModerate
ModerateModerate
reas with transit investment or where large, mixed
-
LowLow
come (below 60% AMI)
income (below 60% AMI)in
--
s
rdinance(s) in suba
LowLow
O
ADU
term: 1 year, start after plan approval | Medium
-
Short
Task DescriptionTask Description
pdate regulations for
dopt a Planned Action
round parking and ownership requirements.
U
A
ncrease housing options and housing choice.
:
I
e with the STA on its plans for future station areas and
1:
ty to Reduce Displacement:
:
B4
C
Proposed timing description:
Household Incomes Targeted: AbiliHousehold Incomes Targeted: Ability to Reduce Displacement:
9
11
stimate the resources to develop needed to implement a
Action Action C
Seek code adoption and related Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsEplanned action ordinance and identify potential grants or funding partners such as the STA that may help offset these costs.Identify
potential subareas for a planned action.Coordinatdiscuss the concept of partnering with housing developers to provide affordable housing its surface parking lots in a transitoriented
development.Conduct SEPA and seek code adoption and related Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsEvaluate the possible impacts from modifying the ADU regulations aRevise ADU development standards
in the SVMC.
Goal
60
9
11
termtermtermtermtermterm
------
termtermterm
term,
---
-
PAGE
Timing ongoing
ShortShortShort
Proposed
Short
MediumMediumMediumMediumMediumMedium
DRAFT
)
ntial for
AMI
grant fundinggrant fundinggrant fundinggrant fundinggrant fundinggrant fundinggrant funding
Existing staff timeExisting staff timeExisting staff time
income (above 120% AMI)income (above 120%
Potential Operational
--
isting staff time, Potential for
igh
Existing staff time, Potential for Existing staff time, Potential for Existing staff time, Potential for Existing staff time, Potential for Existing staff time, Potential for ExExisting
staff time, Pote
Funding and Staff Resources HighH
)
AMI
tor
120% AMI)120%
--
0
Housing &
Building &
&
income (8income (80
Division
--
CoordinatorCoordinator
iddle
Lead/ Partners
Planning DivisionPlanning DivisionPlanning DivisionPlanning DivisionPlanning DivisionPlanning Division
Implementation
MiddleM
Division, Building & Division, Building & Division, Building & Division, Division, Building & Division, Building &
Housing & Homeless Housing & Homeless
Division
Homeless Coordina
Economic Development Economic Development Economic Development Economic Development Economic Development Economic Development Economic Development Economic Development
HighHigh
80% AMI)80% AMI)
--
trative
gislative
income (60income (60
--
Needed
LeLegislative
AdministrativeAdministrativeAdministrativeAdminisAdministrativeAdministrativeAdministrativeAdministrative
Type of Action
ModerateModerate
ModerateModerate
based
-
LowLow
focus group or
income (below 60% AMI)income (below 60% AMI)rs, faith
--
LowLow
from a
addresses Spokane Valley’s
.
to
input
.
related permit fees.
-
Task Description
informed by
of technical experts
oordinate with existing systems of care for effective homeless services implementation
ermit and clarify tiny home regulations
.
C
P
old Incomes Targeted:
2: 3:
the Comprehensive Plan
Household Incomes Targeted: Ability to Reduce Displacement:HousehAbility to Reduce Displacement:
evelop material summarizing the rationale and benefits for this
Action CAction C
Eliminate or reduce ADUEstablished approved ADU models to expedite permittingSeek code adoption and related Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsReview and modify land use and building codes
to permit tiny homes in specific zones.Update site plan approval criteria to account for unique site needs of tiny housesworking groupDhousing typeDraft amendments and legislation and
seek code adoption and related Comprehensive Plan Amendments.Update intention to supporting transitional housing.Identify best practices and potential siting requirements for shelters
and transitional housingActively engage with existing service provideorganizations and regional bodies to coordinate housing resources.
61
9
11
termtermterm
term, term,
---
--
PAGE
Timing ongoingongoing
ShortShortShort
Proposed
ShortShort
DRAFT
)
AMI
0.75 FTE to manage
Existing staff timeExisting staff timeExisting staff timeExisting staff time
-
program, City funded
0.5
income (above 120%
Potential Operational
-
igh
Funding and Staff Resources H
)
AMI
120%
eless
-
income (80
-
CoordinatorCoordinatorCoordinatorCoordinatorCoordinator
iddle
Lead/ Partners
Implementation
M
Housing & Homeless Housing & Homeless Housing & HomHousing & Homeless Housing & Homeless
High
80% AMI)
-
income (60
-
Needed
Legislative
Legislative,
AdministrativeAdministrativeAdministrativeAdministrative
Type of Action
Moderate
Moderate
e
sales
urces
and
manag
Low
am
income (below 60% AMI)
-
Low
.
etc.) are accessed.
income households in areas of
-
ermine if the City should
det
,
Task Description
in Spokane Valley
to moderate
r displacement.
-
Develop a housing fund progr
justify its creation.
:
to
Spokane Valley’s role in the countywide approach to
Household Incomes Targeted: Ability to Reduce Displacement:
Action C4
Given addressing homelessnessits portion of the real estate excise tax fees to support the homeless communityIdentify and define the housing fund program including soof revenue, programmatic
priorities, and staffing resources needed Evaluate the resources needed to staff the program.Ensure that its focus is on supporting the development and preservation of lowSpokane Valley
that are served by transit or where households are at greater risk foEstablish and operate the program, initially with funds from and use tax fund for affordable and supportive housingexpand
as new funds (taxes, grants,
DRAFT
4.2 Use to Inform Housing Policy and Planning Projects
Recommendations advanced in this HAP likely will inform future planning and zoning
implementation projects that include modifications to development standards and allowances as well
as area planning efforts. Spokane Valley could develop work plans and identify budget implications
for recommendations provided in this HAPas an early step. Additionally, Spokane Valley should
leverage near-term planning projects to advance this HAP’s recommendations.
4.3 Monitor Implementation Progress
The city should track its progress toward achieving its housing goals by developing a set of indicators
to track on a regular basis. Determining the exact indicators and monitoring frequency will require
additional research into availability of data and availability of staff time and tracking systems, as well
as discussions with city leaders and the community, to ensure that the chosen indicators adequately
gauge equitable housing progress. Figure 18 provides examples of potential indicators that Spokane
Valley could track.
Figure 18. Potential Indicators for Future Exploration, by HAP Goal
Goals Potential Indicators Potential Data Sources
A.Preservation ofNumber of properties or units acquired by city, Community and agency
Affordable Housingcounty, or nonprofit partnerpartners
and Displacement
Share of rent-burdened residents Census data
Mitigation
County of households on waiting lists for rent-Community and agency
restricted units partners
Number of requests the county receives for tenant Community and agency
assistance from the Spokane Valley zip code partners
People seeking and receiving education and City, Community and
housing support on homeownership or the agency partners
number of participants using a weatherization
program
Number of properties or units acquired or Assessor’s data,
developed by city, county, or nonprofit partner community or agency
partners
B.Increase housingAmount of funding generated for affordable City, community or
supplyhousing. agency partners
Missing-middle housing development and split Assessor’s data
between ownership and rental
The number of housing units produced from MFTE City
C.Increase housingNumber and type of new homes produced over Costar, Assessor’s data,
choice.time—location, tenure, size, sale price/asking rent, Census data, or OFM
accessibility, and unit type data
Number of permitted ADUs and tiny homes City
Share of homebuyers receiving assistance (e.g., Community partners
down payment assistance)
Home purchases by transaction type—cash vs. Home Mortgage
mortgage by type (conventional, FHA, VA, etc.) Disclosure Act
NOTE: Proposed performance measures will require additional discussion to confirm them as well as how to integrate data collection and analysis into
ongoing staff workflow. Potential data sources include City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, HMDA, the ACS, and proprietary sources (e.g.,
Costar and Property Radar).
PAGE 62
UBC$7
APPENDIX A
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
TQPLBOF!WBMMFZ
IPVTJOH!BDUJPO!QMBO
IPVTJOH!OFFET!BTTFTTNFOU
TVNNBSZ!SFQPSU-!PDUPCFS!3131
City of Spokane Valley
The City of Spokane Valley is developing a Housing Action
Plan (HAP) to identify ways to meet housing needs now
and into the future. The HAP is made possible due to a
Washington State Department of Commerce Housing
Bill 1923 Grant. The HAP will include strategies and
implementing actions to encourage greater housing
diversity and affordability, access to opportunity for
residents of all income levels, and should address
both affordable and market-rate housing needs. An
of housing needs by analyzing the best available data
In addition, housing markets function at a regional scale,
that describes the area’s housing and associated
which makes it challenging for individual jurisdictions to
demographic, workforce, and market trends over the past
adequately address issues without regional partnerships.
few decades. This assessment helps answer questions
about the availability of different housing types, who
The following summary compares the City of Spokane
lives and works in the Spokane Valley area, and what
Valley with Spokane County and the City of Spokane
range of housing is needed for all income levels through
to provide a more complete picture of the county-wide
2037, the planning horizon for the HAP which is also
housing landscape while also offering insights on
aligned with the 20-year growth target for the City of
localized versus regional trends, and a more nuanced view
Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan. Housing analysis
of housing market dynamics. Various U.S. Census Bureau,
is an important exercise since a community’s housing
county assessor, and housing market datasets were used
needs tend to continually evolve based on changes in the
to assess the housing stock, workforce, demographics,
broader economy, local demographics, and regulatory
and expected demand. The housing needs assessment
environment.
The City of Spokane Valley, like other communities in the
•Executive Summary
Spokane County region, has changed and grown over the
•National Trends
years, leading to greater demand for different housing
•Spokane Valley Housing Trends
types. Analyzing housing needs is complex because it
•Spokane Valley Demographics
represents a bundle of services that people are willing to
•Spokane Valley Housing Affordability
or able to pay for, including shelter and proximity to other
•Spokane Valley Housing Needs Forecast
attractions (e.g., jobs, shopping, recreation); amenities
•Spokane Valley Workforce Trends
•Spokane County Trends
landscaping, views); and access to public services
maximize all of these services while minimizing costs,
households must make decisions about trade-offs and
can afford.
2
Djuz!pg!Tqplbof!Wbmmfz!!!}!!!!Ipvtjoh!Offet!Bttfttnfou
Executive Summary
are more likely to live in single-person households which
›Spokane Valley’s population growth and housing
development has remained steady for most of the decade.tend to be smaller in size. The aging of the Baby Boomer
From 2010 to 2018, Spokane Valley’s population grew bygeneration (born 1946-1964) could generate greater
demand for living assistance and low-maintenance
7%, adding 6,055 new residents. (Demographics Section).
middle housing options such as townhomes. (County
›The City of Spokane Valley needs about 6,660 newTrends Section).
housing units by 2037 when its population is expected to
reach about 109,913 people. This includes 1,463 housing›Household incomes have increased in Spokane Valley.
units to address housing underproduction over the lastSpokane Valley’s median household incomes for owners
grew by nearly 25% between 2012 and 2018 (from
decade. Around 351 units per year should be produced
through 2037 to meet forecast housing needs which$61,873 to $77,299). Renter incomes increased too by
means slightly more would need to be built per year thanalmost 12% from $34,417 to $38,498 during the same
time period. Overall, these trends indicate increasing
the average produced from 2010 and 2019 (345 housing
units built per year). Spokane Valley should continue topressure on the already limited supplies of moderate
support robust housing growth and advance strategies inand middle-income housing (60-120% AMI) and if they
support of housing growth for a diversity of housing types
and affordability levels. (Housing Forecast Section).households across the City. (Affordability Section).
›Population growth coupled with housing
›Housing needs change over a person’s lifetime. It is
important to track shifts among the share of different ageunderproduction throughout Spokane Valley and the
groups to better comprehend how housing needs changeregion has added pressure on an already limited housing
supply and contributed to rising housing costs. While
as community demographics fluctuate. Spokane Valley’s
millennial population (25-34 years) almost doubled,rents have grown more than 15% since 2010 in the city,
growing substantially from 10% to 15% of the populationhome prices increased by more than 48%. The escalating
total (from 12,148 to 21,144 persons). Millennial
population growth could explain the decline in Spokanefew options of housing affordable at their income level.
Valley’s median age to 35.2 years by 2018, a rate belowHome-ownership is increasing becoming out of reach
the Washington State and Spokane County’s median age
of almost 38 years. (County Trends Section).
burdened, meaning they pay more than one-third of their
gross income for housing.
›Another growing sector is the senior population (65+).
During 2012-2018, seniors grew from 13% to 15% of the
total population settling at an estimated total of 20,910›Affordable housing problems have not affected
all households evenly. Low and moderate-income
persons, a total similar to the millennial population sector.
Spokane County projections from 2020 to 2030 estimatehouseholds have been disproportionately affected. In fact,
that the 65+ population will expand from 18% to 22% ofover 65% of extremely low-income households renting
and owning were severely cost burdened, meaning paying
the total population – a trend that is consistent with other
communities across the country. Homeownership ratesmore than 50% of their income on housing. In addition,
increase as age increases and younger and older people83% of low-income renters (30-50%), 56% low-income
3
Ipvtjoh!Offet!Bttfttnfou!!!}!!!!Djuz!pg!Tqplbof!Wbmmfz
Executive Summary
home owners, and over one-third of moderate-income (60-120% AMI) that can mostly be met through single-
family attached housing (e.g., townhomes and quad
(50-80%) owners and renters were cost burdened,
homes) and housing serving senior’s needs.
meaning paying more than 30% of their income on
housing. Overall, the low-to-moderate income households
(less than 80% of AMI) tend to be more cost-burdened.
(Affordability Section).
Median Income Levels*
When examining household income levels, the Area
›Spokane Valley’s housing stock mostly consists of
Median Income (AMI) and Median Family Income (MFI)
are helpful benchmarks for understanding what different
single-family detached homes (66%) and lacks housing
households can afford to pay for housing expenses.
diversity needed to accommodate future demand
Since housing needs vary by family size and costs vary
particularly associated with aging baby boomers and
by region, HUD produces a median income benchmark
young households forming. The city has a low supply (9%)
for different family sizes and regions on an annual basis.
of “missing middle” housing (e.g., townhomes, duplexes,
These benchmarks help determine eligibility for HUD
quad homes, and cottages) which allows more seniors
housing programs and support the tracking of different
to downsize and remain in their community, while also
housing needs for a range of household incomes.
providing more options for working families to get a
•The median income value (100%) primarily used for this
foothold in great neighborhoods. (Housing Section).
analysis is an annual income of $65,200 for a family of
four (Spokane County rate for 2018).
›Between 2012 and 2018, the share of 2 and 4-person
•Below 30% of AMI is extremely low income (under
households grew in Spokane Valley, while the number
$19,560), 30 to 50% of AMI is very low income ($19,560-
of 1-person households fell. In contrast, the City of
$32,600), 50 to 60% of AMI is low income ($32,600-
Spokane’s share of 1 to 3-person households grew. This
$39,120), 60 to 80% of AMI is moderate income
trend shows Spokane Valley’s housing tilting towards
($39,120-$52,260), 80 to 120% AMI is middle income
2-bedroom housing and larger family-friendly housing
($52,260-$78,240), and above 120% AMI is high income
with at least 2 bedrooms. (Demographics Section).
(above $78,240).
•To put these numbers into perspective, a dishwasher
›Spokane Valley’s workforce, including around 51,305
earns an estimated $26,580 per year on average and
workers, increased by 11% from 2010-2017. Growth in
would be very low income. A pharmacy tech earns $40,940
industry sectors with salaries below 100% AMI is fueling
annually and would be moderate income in the cities of
demand for moderate-to middle-income housing.
Spokane and Spokane Valley metropolitan area.
•Income levels tend to vary throughout a lifetime and
›As a result of the shifting demographics in Spokane
homeownership rates tend to increase as income
Valley, at least 6,660 housing units are needed by 2037.
increases.
If units are allocated based on recent income distribution
*Source of AMI: Spokane County/US Housing and Urban
trends, the majority of new housing units needed through
Development (HUD), 2018, and Occupational Employment
2037 would be for households earning over 100% AMI
Statistics, US Bureau of Labor, 2019, Spokane-Spokane Valley
Metropolitan.https://static.spokanecity.org/documents/chhs/
(56% of total units), and one-third of the total should be
programs/homeinvestment/2018-spokane-home-income-
and-rent.pdf
demand for moderate to middle-income housing options
4
Djuz!pg!Tqplbof!Wbmmfz!!!}!!!!Ipvtjoh!Offet!Bttfttnfou
National Housing Trends
Key National Demographic Trends Associated with Housing
In addition, around one-third of Americans between
Nuclear family households, the predominant type of
18-34 years are living in their parent’s homes (as of
household of the mid 20th Century, shrunk from 40% in
1970 to 20% in 2018 while the share of single-person
to almost 30 in 2016. This trend could decrease housing
households increased from 15% in 1970 to 28% in 2018,
demand for 18-34 aged persons or at least delay it.
to take over as being the most prevalent household type.
This trend could lead to fewer persons per household
which would increase demand for housing units.
America is aging, and the number of seniors will Nationwide, the Hispanic/Latino population is predicted
continue to grow over the next few decades to an to be the fastest growing racial/ethnic group over the
estimated share of around 22% over age 65 by 2050. next few decades and these households tend to include
This is a big increase since only around 16% of US multiple generations, requiring more housing space.
(and Washington state) residents were over 65 in 2018. Over the coming decade, minorities will make up a larger
share of young households and constitute an important
time ever by 2035.source of demand for both lower-cost rental housing
and home-ownership opportunities.
consistently which will likely exacerbate housing availability and stability. Parts of this analysis relied on pre-COVID data.
Sources: AARP (2018) Making Room for a Changing America, U.S. Census Bureau Annual Social and Economic Supplements 1950 and
5
Ipvtjoh!Offet!Bttfttnfou!!!}!!!!Djuz!pg!Tqplbof!Wbmmfz
Spokane Valley Housing Trends
Number of Units Built by Year, 2010-2019
38,730
Number of total housing
units as of mid 2020
Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020
345
3,445
Average
Number of housing units
built between 2010-2019
Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020
Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020
345
Housing Type Built by Decade, as of Mid-2020
New housing units built on
average every year since 2010
9-111
Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020
7-111
5-111
1.04
City Ratio of Housing Units
3-111
to Households
›Between 2010-2019
1
Finance and Management (OFM), 2019,
ECONorthwest calculations. Note: The
housing units to household ratio should
23!up!56!up!3:41!up!5:61!up!::211!,
be above one since healthy housing
markets should have more housing
Housing Scale
units to allow for vacancy, demolition,
Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020. Note: Housing with 5 or more units is
second/vacation homes, and broad
considered multifamily and housing with 5 or less units is single-family
absorption trends. Because Wash-
ington State does not have a regional
approach to planning for housing
Share of Housing By Type, as of Mid-2020
production, ECONorthwest compared
this city ratio to the Spokane County
Housing TypeAverage Age % of Housing
ratio of 1.07 to determine the amount
Single-family Detached4666%
of housing underproduction.
Apartment/Condo3620%
Single-family Attached389%
Mobile/Manufactured Home385%
Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020. Note: Single-family attached
includes duplexes, triplexes, and quad homes.
6
Djuz!pg!Tqplbof!Wbmmfz!!!}!!!!Ipvtjoh!Offet!Bttfttnfou
Spokane Valley Housing Trends
Age of Housing by Type
Single-Family DetachedSingle-Family AttachedApartment
Average Year Built
Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020
Type of Housing Built by Decade, as of Mid-2020
Year Built
Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020.
7
Ipvtjoh!Offet!Bttfttnfou!!!}!!!!Djuz!pg!Tqplbof!Wbmmfz
Spokane Valley Housing Trends
Housing Type
›Overall, Spokane Valley lacks
housing diversity particularly due
to low supplies of single-family
attached housing (comprising
9% of the total housing) such
as town homes, triplexes, and
cottages in single-family areas.
The city could encourage the
development of a variety of
housing types and sizes to
accommodate the diverse
needs of residents through their
changes in age and family size.
Housing Type
Housing Units Built as of
Mid-2020
Percent of
Decade
Units
Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020
Before 19404%
Housing Unit Density
1940’s6%
1950’s11%
1960’s6%
1970’s20%
1980’s11%
1990’s18%
2000’s14%
2010’s10%
Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020.
6%
Unit Count
Change in number of households
20122018
Households36,36538,478
Source: OFM, retrieved in 2020
Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020
8
Djuz!pg!Tqplbof!Wbmmfz!!!}!!!!Ipvtjoh!Offet!Bttfttnfou
Spokane Valley Demographics
Change in Household Size, 2012 & 2018
7%
Change in population
20102018
Population89,75595,810
Source: OFM, retrieved in 2019.
12%
Change in median renter
1234
Household income
People per Household
20122018
Source: PUMS (2012, 2018)
Median
$34,417 $38,498
Income Distribution by AMI, 2012 & 2018
Income
Source: PUMS (2012, 2018). Note: All values
are in 2018 inflation-adjusted dollars.
25%
Change in median owner
household income
20122018
Median
$61,873 $77,299
Income
Source: PUMS (2012, 2018)
Source: PUMS (2012, 2018). Note: All values
are in 2018 inflation-adjusted dollars.
Income Distribution by AMI and Tenure, 2018
48%
Increase in median home sales price
20102020
Median
$202,461 $300,000
Sales Price
Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020.
Values are in 2020 inflation adjusted dollars.
Share of Households
Notes: A household would need to earn over
100% AMI to afford the 2020 median home
sales price. The Zillow Home Valley Index
shows a 59% increase between 2010-2020 to
$283,374 for middle price-tiered homes.
Source: PUMS, 2018
9
Ipvtjoh!Offet!Bttfttnfou!!!}!!!!Djuz!pg!Tqplbof!Wbmmfz
Spokane Valley Housing Affordability
Share of Cost Burdened and Severely Cost Burdened
Cost Burdened
Households by Tenure, 2018
›A household who pays more than
30% of their income on housing.
Severely Cost Burdened
›A household who pays more than
50% of their income on housing.
1,663
Number of income restricted
housing units as of mid-2020
Source: ECONorthwest analysis of public
affordable housing data. Note: Restricted to
low and moderate-household incomes.
Household Income as a % of AMI
15%
Increase in average rent for
Source: PUMS, 2018. Notes: Low and moderate-income households below
2-bedroom apartment
50% AMI tend to be more cost burdened and higher incomes above 100% AMI
less since their larger income go further to cover expenses. Owners tend to be
20102020
less cost burdened due to mortgage lending stipulations; however it can occur
Average
when households with mortgages see income decline. Cost burden does not
$983 $1,131
Rent
consider accumulated wealth and assets.
Source: Costar. All values are in 2020 infla-
Housing Units Affordable by AMI and Tenure, 2018
tion-adjusted dollars. Notes: Average rents
for a 2-bedroom apartment in Spokane
County increased by 13% during the same
time period. This 2020 average rent would be
affordable to those earning 65% AMI or more.
5.2%
2-bedroom apartments were
vacant as of mid-2020
Source: Costar, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Notes: On average during the last decade, the
vacancy rate was 5.4% for 2-bedroom apart-
ments. This is a standard rate of vacancy,
indicating that the supply for this product type
should be adequate to meet demand. This
trend is similar to county and state rates.
Source: PUMS, 2018
10
Djuz!pg!Tqplbof!Wbmmfz!!!}!!!!Ipvtjoh!Offet!Bttfttnfou
Spokane Valley Housing Affordability
Financially Attainable Housing Types
Another way to evaluate housing needs is to consider the different types of housing generally affordable to different
household incomes in comparison to the current housing stock. As shown in the below exhibit, the 2018 area median
income was $65,200 for a family of four in Spokane County (100% AMI).
•Housing types affordable to households below this median annual income tend to be limited to apartments,
manufactured homes, multiplexes (duplexes, triplexes, and quad homes) and townhomes. Much of this housing is
rented, particularly when priced for lower income households earning below 80% AMI and most of the housing below
50% AMI (extremely low and very low income) tends to be government subsidized.
•Around 44% of all the City of Spokane Valley households in 2018 need housing priced below the median income
(100% AMI), yet this housing is inadequate since only 3% of the current housing stock includes multiplexes,
townhomes, apartments, and manufactured homes.
•Housing above the median income is predominantly newer construction and owner-occupied. This housingtypically
includes single-family detached homes, higher-priced single-family attached homes, and condominiums.
Households earning above the median income tend to have more housing options available to them especially when
considering that most of the current housing stock is single-family detached (around 66% in the City of Spokane
Valley). Most Spokane Valley residents living in single-family detached housing own their home (86%) rather than
rent (ACS 1-Year, 2018).
Source: ECONorthwest. Note: All values are in 2019 inflation-adjusted dollars.
11
Ipvtjoh!Offet!Bttfttnfou!!!}!!!!Djuz!pg!Tqplbof!Wbmmfz
Spokane Valley Housing Needs Forecast
Housing Units Needed Through 2037
109,913
UnderproductionFuture NeedHousing Need
Projected population by
1,4635,1976,660
2037 (medium projection)
Source: *Population Projections Appendix
Source: PUMS, 2018; *Appendix; ECONorthwest Calculation.
Note: Underproduction is the estimated number of housing units needed to
742
Average annual population
Housing Units Needed as a Share of Existing Stock
growth projected from 2018
Existing UnitsHousing Need% of Existing Units
to 2037
38,7306,66017%
Source: OFM, 2019; *Population Projections
Appendix; ECONorthwest calculation
Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020; ECONorthwest Calculation
Housing Units Needed by AMI Through 2037, Based
6,660
on 2018 Trends
Projected number of units
AMI# of Units% of Units
needed by 2037
0-30% 5508%
Source: OFM, 2019; *Population Projections
Appendix; ECONorthwest Calculation
30-50%6259%
50-80%1,03916%
351
80-100%68610%
Average number of new
units needed to add
100%+3,76056%
annually from 2019 to 2037
Source: PUMS, 2018;*Appendix; ECONorthwest Calculation
Source: OFM, 2019; *Population Projections
Appendix; ECONorthwest Calculation. This
HUD Affordability Level by Housing Type, 2018
number is higher than the 345 average
housing units built from 2010-2019.
AMIStudio1-bed2-bed3-bed
30%$342$366$440$509
2%
50%$570$612$734$848
Increase in annual housing
production to reach 2037
80%$912$978$1,174$1,356
housing need forecast
100%$1,140$1,222$1,468$1,695
*City of Spokane Valley Appendix
A: SEPA Analysis 2017-2037
Source: HUD, 2018. Notes: The dollar values are for Spokane County and the
Comprehensive Plan
AMI values were adjusted to include the family size that would be appropriate
for the housing type. These are fair market rent values.
12
Djuz!pg!Tqplbof!Wbmmfz!!!}!!!!Ipvtjoh!Offet!Bttfttnfou
Spokane Valley Employment Trends
Employment Trends
commuting trends helps provide insights on the housing
needs of workers today and into the future. Factors such
as job sector growth and the city’s commuting patterns
may have implications for how many people are able to
both live and work within the city. If such factors indicate
many people are commuting into the city for work, it could
be possible that the city does not have enough housing to
accommodate its workforce or enough housing matching
their needs and affordability levels.
trends associated with workforce and wage growth.
• As shown in the employment table, an estimated total
of 51,305 people are part of the workforce in the City
*Transit and drive time of 45 minutes or less, departing at 7:00
AM, mid-week
of Spokane Valley as of 2017. Overall jobs grew by
around 11% from 2010 - 2017 in the city.
Source: US Census LODES database, 2017 and census block
• Among this total, the largest share works in retail
geometries, 2010; Spokane Transit Authority database;
ECONorthwest Calculations.
trade (almost 20% of total), manufacturing (13%), and
health care/social assistance sectors (12%).
This analysis demonstrates how a large majority of jobs
• Removing small job sectors (below 5% of the total),
are more accessible by driving an automobile rather than
the employment sectors experiencing high increases
taking public transit. In total, 260,178 jobs are within a
in job growth between 2010-2017 were educational
45-minute drive from the City of Spokane Valley while
services (120%) and construction sectors (45%), both
far fewer jobs, estimated at 63,115, are located within
with an average salary below $50,000, which could
the 45-minutes transit shed. One quarter of the jobs
indicate increasing demand needed for housing below
are available via transit compared to driving within 45
100% AMI (such as moderate-income housing).
minutes or less from the original location. The denser
urban areas within the small orange area could be
Access to Employment*
analyzed for potential opportunities to include housing
Transit and auto access to regional employment was
development that is more transit-oriented. Mapping out
derived using 45-minute travel sheds for each mode.
commute sheds can be useful for estimating the extent of
ECONorthwest calculated the number of jobs available
the regional housing market since most employed home
within these travel sheds in each industrial sector catego-
buyers and renters tend to search for units with their
ry for the Spokane County region (2-digit NAICS).
commute in mind.
The transit travel sheds originated from every transit stop
within the city while the auto travel sheds originated from
the center of all block groups in the city.
13
Ipvtjoh!Offet!Bttfttnfou!!!}!!!!Djuz!pg!Tqplbof!Wbmmfz
Spokane Valley Employment Trends
Access to Regional
Spokane Valley Employment Numbers
Employment
Industry (2-digit NAICS Code)Employees %# Change% ChangeAverage Salary% Jobs by % Jobs by
(2017)(2010-2017)(2010-2017)(2018)AutoTransit
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and
1.1%513777%$34,44488%19%
Hunting
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas
0.2%3569%$31,46793%14%
Extraction
Utilities
0.6%4619%$69,93692%21%
Construction
6.1%97845%$46,683 93%15%
Manufacturing
13%-172-3%$46,532 96%16%
Wholesale Trade
7.1%68423%$44,029 98%24%
Retail Trade
19.6%-278-3%$33,90497%27%
Transportation and Warehousing
3.9%37523%$49,020 97%10%
Information
0.8%-127-23%$40,373 97%24%
Finance and Insurance
4%34320%$43,927 99%36%
Real Estate and Rental and
1.2%5910%$31,836 97%30%
Leasing
2.8%28926%$48,292 97%31%
Technical Services
Management of Companies and
1.2%29387%$46,964 98%24%
Enterprises
Administrative and Support
and Waste Management and 7.8%60018%$31,520 97%29%
Remediation services
Educational Services
7.1%1,978120%$48,057 93%22%
Health Care and Social Assistance
12.2%-409-6%$41,440 98%23%
Arts, Entertainment, and
0.3%-116-42%$34,583 71%9%
Recreation
Accommodation and Food
7.5%2998%$28,307 97%26%
Services
Other Service
2.5%-102-7%$31,734 96%24%
Public Administration
0.9%-188-28%$52,425 97%13%
Source: US Census LODES database, 2017 and census block geometries, 2010; ECONorthwest.
Note: Median earnings was sourced from ACS 2018 5-year estimates at the tract level, joined to jurisdictional boundaries and
employees within that industry/jurisdiction pair. The estimated total number of Spokane Valley employees in 2017 is 51,305. The 2019
average annual salary for Spokane County was $50,234 (includes all industries) and this means housing below 80% of the AMI would be
affordable to those earning this average salary.
14
Djuz!pg!Tqplbof!Wbmmfz!!!}!!!!Ipvtjoh!Offet!Bttfttnfou
Spokane Valley Commuting Trends
Commuting Flow, 2017
›Approximately 32% of Spokane
Valley’s workforce lived and
worked in Spokane Valley in 2017.
This share increased above 2010
levels (26%).
›Around 40,029 workers (74%) of
the total City of Spokane Valley
workforce live elsewhere and
commute into Spokane Valley
for work while 30,476 workers
(26%) live in Spokane Valley and
commute elsewhere for their work.
›Among those working outside
Source: US Census LODES database, 2017; Census On the Map. Note: Dark
of Spokane Valley, 37% work in
green arrow is showing persons commuting into town (40,029) and the light
green arrow (30,476) shows persons commuting out of town.
Spokane, 5% work in Liberty Lake,
2% work in Seattle, and 2% work
in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. Around
Commuting Trends, 2017
1% of the workforce commutes to
, and Cheney. The remaining 19%
commutes to other locations.
›The high rate of commuting to the
City of Spokane Valley could be due
to a shortage of affordable housing
or suitable housing not meeting the
needs of the workforce or it could
mean they prefer living elsewhere
in the region.
Source: US Census LODES database, 2017; Census On the Map
15
Ipvtjoh!Offet!Bttfttnfou!!!}!!!!Djuz!pg!Tqplbof!Wbmmfz
Spokane County Trends
Change in Household Size, 2012 & 2018
8%
Change in population
›Between 2010 and 2018
20102018
Population471,221507,950
Source: OFM, retrieved in 2020
1234
People per household
7%
Change in number of households
Source: PUMS (2012, 2018)
›Between 2012 and 2018
Income Distribution by AMI, 2012 & 2018
20122018
Households 196,529209,897
Source: OFM, retrieved in 2020
21%
Change in median renter
Household income
›Between 2012 and 2018
20122018
Source: PUMS (2012, 2018)
Median
$28,726 $34,749
Income
Income Distribution by AMI and Tenure, 2018
Source: PUMS (2012, 2018). Note: All values
are in 2018 inflation-adjusted dollars.
9%
Change in median owner
household income
›Between 2012 and 2018
20122018
Median
$68,833 $74,969
Income
Source: PUMS (2012, 2018)
16
Djuz!pg!Tqplbof!Wbmmfz!!!}!!!!Ipvtjoh!Offet!Bttfttnfou
Spokane County Trends
Population by Age, 2012 & 2018
13%
Tqplbof!Dpvouz
Tqplbof!
Tqplbof!Wbmmfz!
Change in average rent for
211&
24&
25&
26&26&
27&
2-bedroom apartment
28&
:1&
›Between 2010 and 2020
91&
24&25&
23&
24&
24&
24&
20102020
81&
Average
36&
71&
38&38&
$968 $1,094
39&
37&
36&
Rent
61&
Source: Costar. Note: All values are in 2018
24&
inflation-adjusted dollars.
23&
51&
21&
26&
25&
26&
41&
:&
Share of Households
22&
23&8&
:&
21&
31&
2:&
29&
27&26&
50%
27&
25&
21&
Change in median home
8&
8&8&
7&
7&
6&
1&
312331293123312931233129
sales price
Voefs!6!zfbst6!up!29!zfbst29!up!35!zfbst36!up!45!zfbst
›Between 2010 and 2020
46!up!55!zfbst56!up!75!zfbst76!zfbst!boe!pmefs
20102020
Source: ACS(2012, 2018); PUMS 1-Year Estimates
Median
$184,000$275,000
Sales Price
Cost Burdened and Severely Cost Burdened by
Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020.
Tenure, 2018
Note: All values are in 2018 inflation-adjusted
Owners
dollars.
211&
:2&
Dptu!CvsefofeTfwfsfmz!Dptu!Cvsefofe
85&
91&
67&
Housing Units Built by
71&
49&
Decade, as of Mid-2020
51&
36&
27&
31&
22&
DecadePercent of Units
6&
1&1&
Share of Households
1&
Before 194011%
1940’s5%
Renters
1950’s8%
211&
97&
94&
1960’s5%
91&
77&
1970’s15%
71&
58&
4:&
1980’s10%
51&
1990’s19%
24&24&
31&
Share of Households
:&
4&
1&
2000’s17%
1&
1.41&41.61&61.91&91.211&211&,
2010’s9%
Household Income as a % of AMI
Source: PUMS, 2018
Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020
17
Ipvtjoh!Offet!Bttfttnfou!!!}!!!!Djuz!pg!Tqplbof!Wbmmfz
Spokane County Trends
Commuting Flow, 2017
›About 82%, or 139,710, of
Spokane County residents live
and work in Spokane County.
›About 18%, or 31,388 of
Spokane County residents work
outside Spokane County.
›Most of Spokane County
residents work in City of Spokane
or City of Spokane Valley.
Source: US Census LODES database, 2017; Census On the Map. Note: Dark green arrow is
showing persons commuting into town (45,333) and the light green arrow (31,388) shows
persons commuting out of town.
Cities Where Spokane County Residents Work, 2017
Dpfvs!e(Bmfof-!JE 2&
Nfejdbm!Mblf-!XB
2&
Difofz-!XB
3&
Bjsxbz!Ifjhiut-!XB
3&
Tfbuumf-!XB
3&
Mjcfsuz!Mblf-!XB
4&
Tqplbof!Wbmmfz-!XB 29&
Bmm!Puifs!Mpdbujpot
35&
Tqplbof-!XB 58&
1&31&51&71&
Source: US Census LODES database, 2017; Census On the Map
18
Djuz!pg!Tqplbof!Wbmmfz!!!}!!!!Ipvtjoh!Offet!Bttfttnfou
UBC$8
APPENDIX B
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT METHODS AND DATA
SOURCES
!
EBUF;!!Tfqufncfs!39-!3131!
UP;!Djuz!pg!Tqplbof!Wbmmfz!
GSPN;!FDPOpsuixftu!
TVCKFDU;!IPVTJOH!OFFET!BTTFTTNFOU!NFUIPET!NFNP!!
Cbdlhspvoe!boe!Qvsqptf!
Gjhvsf!2/!Tuvez!Bsfb!
Tpvsdf;!FDPOpsuixftu!
FDPOpsuixftu!}!Qpsumboe!}!Tfbuumf!}!Mpt!Bohfmft!}!Fvhfof!}!Cpjtf!}!fdpox/dpn!2!
!
!
Efgjojoh!uif!Tuvez!Bsfb!
Ebub!Tpvsdft!
FDPOpsuixftu!!3!!
!
!
Bobmztjt!Nfuipet!
Upubm!Ipvtjoh!Vojut!Offefe!!
Gjhvsf!3/!Upubm!Offefe!Ipvtjoh!Vojut!!
Dvssfou!Voefsqspevdujpo!
FDPOpsuixftu!!4!!
Upubm!Vojut!Offefe!cz!Jodpnf!
Fnqmpznfou!Bobmztjt!
FDPOpsuixftu!5!!
!
!
Bddftt!up!Fnqmpznfou!
Usbotju!Jtpdispoft!
Bvup!Jtpdispoft!
Tibsf!pg!Kpct!Bddfttjcmf!!
Dbwfbut!
FDPOpsuixftu!!6!!
UBC$9
APPENDIX C
HOUSING POLICY FRAMEWORK
MEMORANDUM
To: Chaz Bates, City of Spokane Valley Date: November 4, 2020
Revised January 29, 2021
From: Matt Hoffman Project No.: 1932.01.01
Ben Johnson, AICP
RE: Housing Policy Framework Review
The City of Spokane Valley (City) is developing a Housing Action Plan (HAP) to evaluate current and
future housing needs and identify strategies to meet these needs. This memorandum meets the housing
policy framework review (Review) requirements defined by Revised Code of Washington (RCW)
36.70A.600(2) for completing a HAP. This Review identifies existing housing goals, policies, and
strategies from the 2017 Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) as well as housing
programs and incentives currently available to encourage greater housing supply and the development
of affordable housing in the city.
Figure 1: Context Map
This Review contains three sections:
Section 1: A review of the Comp
Plan Housing Element goals and
policies
Section 2: Regulatory review
Section 3: Summary of findings
The information will be used alongside the
housing needs assessment and input from
community members and stakeholders in
developing strategies and policies to meet the
cityÔs unique housing needs and to complete
the HAP.
2815 2nd Avenue, Suite 540, Seattle, WA 98121
www.maulfoster.com
R:\\1932.01 City of Spokane Valley\\Documents\\01_2021.01.29 Policy Memo\\Mf_Policy-Regulatory Memo_v3.docx
Chaz Bates, City of Spokane Valley Project No. 1932.01.01
November 4, 2020
Revised January 29, 2021
Page 2
SECTION 1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY AND GOALS REVIEW
In its Comp Plan, the City has identified three goals
COMMUNITY SNAPSHOT
and four priorities specifically related to housing.
2
¤Land Area: 38.5mi
Other elements of the Comp Plan, particularly the
¤Population: 95,810
Land Use element, deal with several other goals and
¤Total Employment: 46,573
policies related to housing.
¤Key Employment Industries:
Î Retail Trade (19.6%)
Four housing themes identified in the Comp Plan
Î Health Care/Social Assistance (12.2%)
are evaluated in this section. For each theme, the
Î Manufacturing (13.0%)
Comp Plan goals, policies, and strategies are
¤Median Age: 35.2
presented, followed by a description of actions
¤Educational Attainment
taken by the City since the adoption of the Comp Î High School or Higher: 91.9%
Î BachelorÔs or Higher: 20.9%
Plan to advance housing objectives. Each theme
¤Median Household Income: $48,274
concludes with an assessment of the progress
achieved by the City to date. A complete list of
Sources: Washington OFM (2019); Employment Security
Department/LMEA; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local
housing-related goals, policies, and strategies is
Area Unemployment Statistics; U.S. Census ACS (2014); U.S.
Census LEHD (2014).
provided in Attachment A.
Housing Theme 1: Ensure a Range of Housing Options for Residents
Comp Plan Policies, Goals, and Strategies
During the development of the Comp Plan, community members identified a need for a greater
diversity of housing types to serve people at all income levels and stages of life. The following Comp
Plan goals and policies relate to housing variety:
H-G1: Allow for a broad range of housing
Abbreviation Key
opportunities to meet the needs of the
Abbreviation Definition
community.
HHousing Element
H-P2: Adopt development regulations that
LU Land Use Element
expand housing choices by allowing
GGoal
innovative housing types, including tiny
PPolicy
homes, accessory dwelling units,
Goals = broad statements of purpose.
prefabricated homes, cohousing, cottage
Policies = staff direction.
housing, and other housing types.
Strategies = initial actions.
LU-P14: Enable a variety of housing types.
Demographic shifts identified in the housing needs assessment underscore the importance of H-G1
and the related policies. Spokane ValleyÔs millennial population (ages 25 to 34) almost doubled,
growing substantially from 10 percent to 15 percent of the population total (from 12,148 to 21,144
persons) between 2012 and 2018. These households will continue to seek starter homes and homes
Chaz Bates, City of Spokane Valley Project No. 1932.01.01
November 4, 2020
Revised January 29, 2021
Page 3
for growing families. On the other end of the spectrum, the senior population (65 and over) is
expected to grow by approximately 11,500 people between 2020 and 2040. This age group could
generate greater demand for living assistance and low-maintenance middle housing options such as
townhomes.
In addition to the policies and goals listed above, the Comp Plan featured a strategy to Ñcontinue to
evaluate new housing typologies to meet market needs.Ò One example of how this strategy is being
implemented is through the HAP, which is planned to be finalized by June 30, 2021.
Actions Taken
In June 2016, the City implemented new zoning regulations to allow for a variety of housing types
targeting smaller and more affordable housing options for first-time home buyers, young families,
and renters not eligible for subsidized housing. They are also referred to as Ñmissing middle housing
types.Ò Examples of these housing types can be found in Attachment B.
The 2016 regulations allowed ADUs, cottage
Missing Middle Housing Types Defined
housing, duplexes, manufactured homes on both
Missing middle housing types provide diverse
individual lots and in home parks, and
housing options, such as duplexes, fourplexes,
townhouses. Duplexes were permitted in the
cottage courts, and multiplexes. These house-
scale buildings fit seamlessly into existing
denser residential (R) districts, Residential-3 (R-
residential neighborhoods and support
3), and Multifamily Residential (MFR) and
walkability, retail, and public transportation
mixed-use districts. The other alternative housing
options. They provide solutions along a
types, including cottage housing, ADUs, and
spectrum of affordability to address the
manufactured homes, were allowed in residential
mismatch between the available U.S. housing
stock and shifting demographics, as well as the
and nonresidential zoning districts throughout
growing demand for walkability.
the city, if developments complied with the
Source: https://missingmiddlehousing.com
supplemental development regulations.
New duplex developments in the city since 2016
raised concern among residents about the negative impacts duplex development may have on the
character of certain existing single-family neighborhoods. As a result, the City amended its zoning
regulations during the 2020 annual Comp Plan update. The revisions prohibit cottage housing,
townhomes, and assisted-living facilities in R-3 single-family residential districts. Duplexes, ADUs,
and manufactured homes are still permitted under the supplemental use regulations in the R-3 district.
The 2020 amendment increased the allowable density for detached single-family homes from six
dwelling units per acre to eight dwelling units per acre while maintaining the allowable density for
ADUs and manufactured homes. The minimum lot size for a duplex was increased from 10,000 square
feet to 14,500 square feet.
These new restrictions in the R-3 district were offset by creating a new residential zone, R-4, that
allows greater density and alternative housing types, specifically targeting areas served by transit. When
Chaz Bates, City of Spokane Valley Project No. 1932.01.01
November 4, 2020
Revised January 29, 2021
Page 4
viewed comprehensively, these revisions to the zoning regulations address the goals of allowing for a
range of housing types, creating density around mixed-use areas, and protecting existing neighborhood
character. Overall, a broader range of housing options can be built in different zones (including
duplexes, cottage housing, ADUs, townhouses, manufactured homes) in more areas than allowed
before 2016.
Evaluation of Progress
The City has advanced H-G1, as construction of a variety
of missing middle housing types is now permitted in the
Single-Family-Home Dominant
city. Since 2016, most of the new housing units have been
The current overall distribution of
housing options in the city is
multifamily apartments and duplexes; other product types
weighted heavily toward single-
such as cottage housing, townhomes, ADUs, and
family homes, which comprise 66
manufactured homes have not been introduced to the
percent of the total dwelling units as
market. It is important to understand that development type
of mid-2020 (approximately 25,665
single-family units out of 38,787 total
allowances in zones will only be delivered when both
units, Spokane County Assessor).
market demand supports targeted housing types and there
is enough zoned capacity with the right site characteristics.
Since 2016, a total of 1,941 units have been constructed, with 42 percent of new units (808) being
multifamily apartments. Attached single-family homes and homes with more than one unit but fewer
than five have represented 22 percent (427 units) of the total units constructed (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Housing Option Unit Distribution
TotalDwellingUnitsTotalBuiltSince2016
Condominium,2%
ADU,0%Apartment,
Single
18%
family,33%
Apartment,
42%
Attachedsingle
family,9%
Singlefamily,
66%
Attachedsingle
Condominium,0%
family,22%
Mobile/manufacturedhome,
4%
ADU,2%
Mobile/manufactured
home,2%
Source: Spokane County Assessor, ECONorthwest, Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc.
Before 2016, only 13 percent of the cityÔs housing stock represented one of the missing middle housing
types. Since 2016, nearly 25 percent of all new dwelling units have been missing middle housing types
(as shown in Table 1.)
Chaz Bates, City of Spokane Valley Project No. 1932.01.01
November 4, 2020
Revised January 29, 2021
Page 5
Table 1: New Housing Types Constructed since 2016
Type Units Percent of Subtotal Percent of Overall
ADU30 6.1%1.5%
Cottage0 0.0%0.0%
Duplex384 77.9%19.8%
Triplex/Fourplex173.4%0.9%
Townhomes26 7.3%1.3%
Manufactured Homes 36 5.3% 1.9%
Housing Types
Missing Middle
Subtotal 493 100% 24.5%
Apartment 808 42.5%
Single Family 64033.0%
Overall Built Since 2016 1,941
Source: Spokane County Assessor, ECONorthwest, Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc.
Table 1 shows that since 2016, the market has responded to demand and delivered more attached
single-family units. The majorityÐ78 percentÐhave been duplexes.
Despite policies supporting the construction of broadened housing options, built housing has largely
been limited to single-family homes, multifamily apartments, and duplexes. This could be related to a
slower adoption of these housing types by local developers and lack of education on new housing
products such as ADUs, townhouses, and cottage housing.
Housing Theme 2: Improve Housing Affordability
Comp Plan Policies, Goals, and Strategies
The current Comp Plan includes a goal to allow for a diversity of housing options that are affordable
to households at all income levels.Housing affordability remains relevant todayH-G2 as well as two
of the housing policies in the Comp Plan address the development of affordable housing.
H-G2 Enable the development of affordable housing for all income levels.
H-P3 Use available financial and regulatory tools to support the development of affordable
housing units.
H-P4 Enable the creation of housing for resident individuals and families needing assistance
from social and human services providers.
In addition to the policies and goals, the Comp Plan lays out several strategies for improving housing
affordability:
Identify low- and moderate-income housing needs.
Streamline permitting procedures based on feedback from businesses and landowners,
developers, etc.
Chaz Bates, City of Spokane Valley Project No. 1932.01.01
November 4, 2020
Revised January 29, 2021
Page 6
Evaluate parking standards and reduce the amount of required parking if feasible.
Actions Taken
Selected recent actions taken by the City to help address housing affordability are described below. A
more detailed list of implemented housing-supportive programs is available in Attachment C.
Sales and Use Tax Funds for Affordable and Supportive Housing Purposes
In February 2020, the City adopted Ordinance 20-002 to incorporate a sales and use tax for affordable
and supportive housing. This ordinance and its subsequent incorporation into the Spokane Valley
Municipal Code (SVMC; Section 3.06) authorized the City to receive a rebate of a portion of state
sales and use tax collected in the city, in the amount of 0.0073 percent, which can be used only for
qualifying expenses related to affordable and supportive housing. This sales tax option is a credit
against the state sales tax rate of 6.5 percent, so it will not increase the tax rate for consumers. The
City has estimated the annual increase of funds from this program to be approximately $178,000.
These funds can be used for acquiring, rehabilitating, constructing, or operating and maintaining new
1
affordable housing units. They cannot be used to fund construction or operation of a homeless
shelter, but instead are reserved for longer-term low income, affordable, and supportive housing. The
City can use these funds independently, or they can be pooled in partnership with other regional
organizations to pay for a larger regional affordable housing development. Funds can be spent on
projects each year, or they can be used as a source of repayment of bonds sold to construct an
affordable housing capital project.
Per state law, cities with populations under 100,000 may use the funds to provide rental assistance to
tenants. The city is projected to exceed 100,000 people in approximately three years and is seeking
input from the state on whether it may use the funds in this manner once its population exceeds
100,000.
Housing Needs Gap, Housing Action Plan
The housing needs analysis included an assessment of the gaps between the currently available housing
and the housing needed today and into through 2037. The assessment showed that the city has
underproduced housing by around 1,463 housing units over the past decade and would need 5,197
new housing units built by 2037 to meet the estimated demand.
Not only is there a shortage in the number of housing units available, but the housing needs analysis
also showed a mismatch in the type of housing units available. Around 44 percent of all the city
households need housing priced below 100 percent of the area median income (AMI), yet this housing
is inadequate since only 34 percent of the current housing stock includes housing types affordable for
incomes below the AMI, such as less expensive detached single-family homes (ADUs, manufactured
homes, cottage), attached single-family homes (duplexes and townhomes and multifamily
1
RCW 82.14.540 Affordable and supportive housing- Sales and use tax.
Chaz Bates, City of Spokane Valley Project No. 1932.01.01
November 4, 2020
Revised January 29, 2021
Page 7
developments). When examining household income levels, the AMI is a measure helpful for
understanding what different households can afford to pay for housing expenses. Figure 3 illustrates
the type of home a household may afford based on its income. Examples of housing types can be
found in Attachment B.
Figure 3: Financially Attainable Housing Types
Source: ECONorthwest. Note: All values are in 2019 inflation-adjusted dollars.
As a component of the HAP, the housing needs assessment achieves the Comp Plan strategy of
identifying low- and moderate-income housing needs. Table 2 shows the quantity of estimated housing
units needed between 2020 and 2037 and the breakdown of needed housing based on household
income levels.
Chaz Bates, City of Spokane Valley Project No. 1932.01.01
November 4, 2020
Revised January 29, 2021
Page 8
Table 2: Total Housing Units Needed by AMI through 2037
AMI No. of Units % of Units
0-30%5508%
30-50%6259%
50-80%1,03916%
80-100%68610%
100%+3,76056%
Total Units Needed 6,600
Source: ECONorthwest, Spokane Valley Housing Needs Assessment Summary Report, October 2020.
Table 3 provides context on home prices ranges and rent affordability thresholds for households in
Spokane County.
Table 3: Spokane County Housing Affordability Ranges
Household Income Level Low End of RangeÐHigh End of RangeÐRent
(percent of AMI) Home sale affordability Home sale affordability Affordability
30%$93,000$135,000$805
50%$133,000$196,000$1,006
60%$173,000$247,000$1,207
80%$183,000$272,000$1,274
100%$195,000$285,000$1,305
Source: HUD, 2020, ECONorthwest Calculations. The AMI (100 percent) used for the below analysis is $71,700 annual income for a
family of four. This is exclusive of transportation, utility, and other household expenses. Lower-end terms assume a 5 percent down
payment, a 4.5 percent interest rate over 30 years, $800 per month for insurance, and 0.5 percent private mortgage insurance. Upper-end
terms assume a 20 percent down payment, a 3.5 percent interest rate over 30 years, $800 per month for insurance, and no private mortgage
insurance.
As the HAP process continues, the project team will work with the City to continue evaluating
potential housing types and to identify next steps and priority strategies. The recent building pattern
data show that duplexes and multifamily apartments are being built; however, other housing types are
being built at a much slower pace (townhomes and ADUs) or not at all (cottages). Interviews with
nonprofit and for-profit developers will also help to identify existing barriers to development of
affordable housing types and inform the next steps of the HAP.
Urban County Consortium
The City, along with Spokane County and other municipalities in the region (except for the City of
Spokane), is a member of the Urban County Consortium. An interlocal agreement enables the county
to manage several state and federal affordable housing and homelessness funding sources, including
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) HOME program, Community
Development Block Grants, and document recording fee revenues generated through the Homeless
Housing Assistance Act. These funds are distributed throughout the county to developers and service
providers based on a competitive request-for-proposals process. City representatives are members of
the advisory board that provides oversight on the use of these funds.
Chaz Bates, City of Spokane Valley Project No. 1932.01.01
November 4, 2020
Revised January 29, 2021
Page 9
The City is currently evaluating the
Primary Subsidy Programs
feasibility of assuming control of its
The primary programs used to support construction,
portion of the document recording fee
rehabilitation or acquisition of affordable housing
revenues from the Urban County
include:
HUD Section 202 provides housing for very-low-income
Consortium. The primary advantage
elderly persons.
would be the CityÔs direct oversight of
HUD Section 811 provides housing for persons with
homelessness funding, enabling better
disabilities.
communication about how homelessness
Low-Income Housing Bond/Tax Credit program
in the city is being addressed.
provides affordable rental housing for low- and
Disadvantages include administrative
moderate-income tenants.
costs not covered by the Homeless
Of the 1,663 subsidized units in the city, 1,010, or 59
Housing Assistance Act program and
percent, are funded in part by the bond/tax credit
possible duplication of current efforts by
program. HUD supports 418 units, or 24 percent, of the
the City of Spokane and the county.
total units, with remaining units having an unidentified
subsidy source.
Addressing Homelessness
Addressing and preventing homelessness
has been a topic of discussion in recent Spokane Valley City Council meetings as the City evaluates its
participation in the Urban County Consortium. The Comp Plan currently does not include any goals,
policies, or strategies that address homelessness in the city. Creating such Comp Plan goals, policies,
and strategies may help to direct City staff working on this issue.
Limited availability of property where emergency housing uses are permitted has been a barrier to
locating housing for people experiencing homelessness in the Spokane Valley. If the City identifies
additional emergency or transitional housing as a priority, it will be important to consider and clearly
identify where this type of use will be permitted. Currently, transitional housing is allowed only as a
conditional use in the multifamily residential zones.
Evaluation of Progress
Subsidized Affordable Units
An inventory of the CityÔs stock of subsidized, rent-restricted affordable housing was conducted in
July 2020. The results are shown in Table 4. As of mid-2020, 1,544 units targeted for households
earning less than 80 percent of AMI had been constructed. A 119-unit multifamily development is
under construction. When that development is completed, the total count of rent-restricted affordable
housing units will increase to 1,663 units. Rent-restricted affordable units account for four percent of
the 38,787 total housing units in the city.
Chaz Bates, City of Spokane Valley Project No. 1932.01.01
November 4, 2020
Revised January 29, 2021
Page 10
Table 4: Spokane Valley Rent-Restricted Housing Units* by Building Age
% of
Year Built Properties % of Total No. of Low-Income Units
Total
Pre-20061773.9%1,02661.7%
200614.3%28717.3%
200914.3%372.2%
201414.3%241.4%
201714.3%513.1%
201914.3%1197.2%
2021**14.3%1197.2%
Total: 23 100.0% 1,663 100.0%
Source: the Washington State Housing Finance Commission, HUDÔs Multifamily Housing Portfolio, the USDA Rural Development
Multifamily Housing Program (no properties in Spokane Valley), the Spokane Housing Authority, ECONorthwest.
* These data likely capture a robust share of the total rent-restricted affordable housing in the city.
** Construction expected to be complete by mid-2021.
The Total Housing Units Needed by AMI through 2037 (Table 2) shows that 2,900 units, or 43 percent
of the 6,600 total projected units needed through 2037, are for households earning at or below 100
percent of AMI. Table 5 demonstrates that the city currently has a shortage of rent-restricted units
supporting households earning less than 50 percent of AMI, and especially for households earning
less than 30 percent of AMI. The target for new units supporting households earning less than 30
percent of AMI by 2037 (shown in Table 2) is 550 units. The city currently has only approximately 60
rent-restricted units in this income bracket. This underscores the challenge faced by the City to
encourage an increase in supply for homes attainable for these households through 2037.
Table 5: Current Spokane Valley Affordable Housing Units by Income Level
Affordability Units with Listed Estimated
% of Total
Level Rent Data* Total Units**
0-30%404%60
30-50%29226%436
Over 50% 781 70% 1,167
Total:1,113100%1,663
Source: the Washington State Housing Finance Commission, HUDÔs Multifamily Housing Portfolio, the USDA Rural Development
Multifamily Housing Program (no properties in Spokane Valley), the Spokane Housing Authority, ECONorthwest
* Rent-restricted units with targeted AMI strata identified.
** Extrapolated estimate of the number of rent-restricted units in each affordability level strata. This estimate assumes that the distribution
of known units is the same for the unknown portion, to arrive at a total representing the total number of low-income units in the city.
Table 5 does not account for naturally occurring affordable housing and includes only units subsidized
using state and federal sources. Naturally occurring affordable housingÐdwelling units that are
attainable to households at different affordability levels without subsidyÐare not included. Most
existing naturally occurring affordable housing units will be in the 50 percent to 80 percent AMI range,
which will partially help and which makes a case for preservation. Because affordable housing can be
both difficult and expensive to build, strategies to support naturally occurring affordable housing and
the preservation of affordable housing should be considered in addition to building new rent-restricted
affordable housing.
Chaz Bates, City of Spokane Valley Project No. 1932.01.01
November 4, 2020
Revised January 29, 2021
Page 11
Market Rate Rental
The above tables summarize the status of the subsidized rental housing market in the city and
demonstrates that the demand for these units is persistent. Regarding market rate multifamily rental
units, Figure 4 shows that the average current asking rental rate for market units that are not subsidized
is typically attainable for households earning at least 100 percent of AMI. The exception is for two-
bedroom units where households earning 80 percent of AMI can afford the average asking rate.
Figure 4: Monthly Rent Payments by HUD Affordability Level
Source: HUD, ECONorthwest, CoStar.
The current overall vacancy rate for units in multifamily developments is 5.4 percent. This represents
a low vacancy rate and demonstrates that the rental market is not overly constrained. A five percent
vacancy implies a balance between housing supply and demand.
Figure 5: Multifamily Unit Availability
Figure 5 shows that two-bedroom units (3,012 units)
StudioUnits
321units
3BedUnits
and one-bedroom units (1,732 units) are the most
22.1%Available
849units
3.1%Available
prevalent multifamily unit type. The current vacancy
rate for these unit types is at or near the balanced rate
1BedUnits
1,732units
of five percent. These data show that studio units
5.0%Available
have a 22.1 percent vacancy rate, representing a lack
of demand, and that the three-bedroom units have a
2BedUnits
low vacancy rate of 3.1 percent.
3,012units
4.5%Available
This market observation is bolstered by a
Source: CoStar.
demographic finding from the housing needs
assessment, which found: ÑBetween 2012 and 2018, the share of 2- and 4-person households grew in
Spokane Valley, while the number of 1-person households fell. In contrast, the City of SpokaneÔs share
of 1- to 3-person households grew. This trend shows Spokane ValleyÔs housing tilting towards
2-bedroom housing and larger family-friendly housing with at least 2 bedrooms.Ò
Chaz Bates, City of Spokane Valley Project No. 1932.01.01
November 4, 2020
Revised January 29, 2021
Page 12
Attached single-family units such as townhomes and detached single-family units such as ADUs
available for rent also supplement the rental market. As previously noted, nearly 450 of these types of
units have been developed since 2016, and most of these are available for rent. Additional supply of
these missing middle housing types is needed to improve housing attainability for all income-level
segments, especially for households earning over 60 percent but under 120 percent of AMI. Offering
incentives for missing middle housing and modifying the SVMC could assist in filling the gap for these
needed housing types.
Housing Theme 3: Enhance Distinctive Neighborhood Character/
Support Neighborhood Commercial
Comp Plan Policies, Goals, and Strategies
The cityÔs current development pattern is primarily auto-oriented, as illustrated by its average Walk
Score rating of 30 (indicating that most errands require a car). Comparatively, the City of SpokaneÔs
Walk Score is 49, indicating more walkable neighborhoods. Several goals and policies in the Comp
Plan encourage neighborhood conveniences and mixed-use residential development.
H-G3 Allow convenient access to daily goods and services in Spokane ValleyÔs
neighborhoods.
LU-P7 Protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses and adverse impacts
associated with transportation corridors.
These goals and polices may not directly encourage the development of new housing units, but they
do support the type of development and neighborhood services that help make communities healthy
and vibrant.
Actions Taken
Retail commercial is permitted in most nonresidential zones but is not allowed in residential zones.
Conversely, residential development is permitted in the neighborhood commercial (NC), mixed use
(MU), and corridor mixed use (CMU), which support the intent of H-G3.
The City established transitional regulations (SVMC 19.75) to protect residents in less intensively
zoned areas that abut more intensive zones from development that takes place in those intensive
zones. These transitional regulations influence setbacks and building heights.
The City also modified its zoning regulations in 2020 to create a new single-family residential urban
(R-4) zoning district. This code modification was a response to community input and the CityÔs goal
to increase housing options and density in areas near transit and services. The new R-4 zone is
concentrated between East Broadway Avenue to the north, North Sullivan Road to the east, East
Eighth Avenue to the south, and North Park Road to the west. The R-4 zone creates a buffer zone
Chaz Bates, City of Spokane Valley Project No. 1932.01.01
November 4, 2020
Revised January 29, 2021
Page 13
that permits more diverse housing between the R-3 zone and the more intense CMU zone abutting
Sprague Avenue. A map of the cityÔs zoning districts can be found in Attachment D.
Evaluation of Progress
Most of the cityÔs commercial properties are located along the principal arterials and are generally not
neighborhood facing. Commercial land uses, including retail and services, are conveniently accessed
by automobile, and are located along transit lines, but there are few examples of neighborhood-scaled
commercial developments.
The city has 16 areas of NC-zoned parcels generally located at key intersections along collector and
minor street intersections. Most of these properties are improved with residential units and do not
include commercial uses. There are 56 parcels totaling 43 acres zoned NC in the city. Of that total, 26
parcels are vacant or undeveloped and ten parcels have commercial improvements. There are
development opportunities for neighborhood commercial uses in the NC zone; however, the market
has not responded with new commercial or mixed-use developments since this zone was expanded
throughout the city in 2017.
Housing Theme 4: Encourage the Creation of Mixed-Use Destinations
Comp Plan Policies, Goals, and Strategies
The Comp Plan cites the Kendall Yards area of
Figure 6: Mixed-Use Examples
Spokane as an example of a mixed-use destination
Kendall Yards, Spokane
development that combines housing, retail, and
West of Jefferson Mixed-Use Building, Planned
amenities in a walkable community connected to
Completion 2021
transit. Another identified example of this type of
multi-phased, mixed-use development is the River
District in Liberty Lake. The Comp Plan notes that a
certain level of residential density is needed to
support new businesses in these areas. Multi-phased,
mixed-use developments also provide opportunities
for mixed-income housing.
Source: Inland Northwest Business Watch/Baker Construction.
LU-G3 Support the transformation of
River District Town Center, Liberty Lake
Town center vision with housing above commercial
commercial, industrial, and mixed-use areas
into accessible districts that attract economic
activity.
LU-P13 Work collaboratively with landlords
and developers that seek to provide mixed-
use residential projects.
Source: Shoesmith Cox Architects.
Chaz Bates, City of Spokane Valley Project No. 1932.01.01
November 4, 2020
Revised January 29, 2021
Page 14
LU-P16 Maximize the density of development along major transit corridors and near transit
centers and commercial areas.
Actions Taken
The CityÔs mixed-use zones (MU and CMU) allow for concurrent development of residential and
commercial space. These uses may be developed side by side or on top of each other, with the
commercial space on the ground floor. Planned residential developments (PRDs) also permit mixed-
used developments in residential zoning districts on projects of at least 5 acres.
Evaluation of Progress
The CMU and MU zones comprise nearly 2,600 acres and 3,116 total housing units, of which 1,899
are multifamily. All these units are in two- or three-story walk-up apartments that do not include
commercial uses.
Several other areas in the City could support a multi-phased mixed-use development. For example,
the Desmet Court multifamily development is under construction on 10 acres in the MU zone located
near I-90 and North Sullivan Road. This garden-style apartment project will maximize the allowable
density for this zone and result in approximately 300 rental units at a density of 30 units per acre. No
commercial space is included in this project.
SECTION 2. REGULATORY REVIEW
Zoning Regulations
The information below summarizes the SVMC Title 19 zoning, and more details on the SVMC can
be found in Attachment D.
Permitted Uses
Table 6 shows the residential uses allowed in the cityÔs residential and nonresidential zones. Residential
uses featuring a ÑPÒ in the zoning district column are permitted outright, while those with an ÑSÒ are
2
subject to supplemental code requirements. The City has five residential zones (R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4,
and MFR) that are specifically intended to support residential development; however, residential
development is also permitted in nonresidential zones.
Single-family homes are permitted in all five residential zones, the two mixed-use zones (MU
and CMU), and the NC zone.
Duplexes are permitted in R-4, MFR, and the two mixed-use zones, while multifamily
residential uses are also permitted in the MFR zone and the mixed-use zones. Duplexes are
2
SVMC Chapter 19.40 Alternative Residential Development Options.
Chaz Bates, City of Spokane Valley Project No. 1932.01.01
November 4, 2020
Revised January 29, 2021
Page 15
also permitted in the R-3 zone under the supplemental use regulations (SVMC 19.40.060)
requiring a minimum lot size of 14,500 square feet.
Townhouses and cottages are permitted under the supplemental use regulations in the R-4,
MFR, MU, and CMU zones. The NC zone also permits townhouses.
Table 6: Permitted Uses MatrixÐResidential Uses
Nonresidential Zones
Residential Zones
Residential Use Type Mixed Use Commercial Industrial
R-1R-2R-3R-4MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU I
Dwelling, accessory
S S S S S S S S S
units
Dwelling, caretakerÔs
S S S S S
residence
Dwelling, cottage S S S S
Dwelling, duplex S P P P P
Dwelling, industrial
S S
accessory dwelling unit
Dwelling, multifamily P P P
Dwelling, single-family P P P P P P P P
Dwelling, townhouse S S S S S
Manufactured-home
S S S
park
SVMC 19.60.050 Permitted Uses Matrix.
P = Permitted.
S = Supplemental Use Regulations.
Site-Development Standards
The City has five residential zoning districts ranging from Single-Family Residential Estate (R-1), the
least dense zone that allows for lots of at least 40,000 square feet and one dwelling unit per acre, to
MFR, which has no minimum lot size and allows up to 22 dwelling units per acre. No density bonuses
are currently allowed, except for PRDs that set aside 30 percent of the development for open space.
Table 7 details the dimensional standards for these residential districts.
Chaz Bates, City of Spokane Valley Project No. 1932.01.01
November 4, 2020
Revised January 29, 2021
Page 16
Table 7: Residential Standards
Standard R-1R-2R-3R-4MFR
Front and Flanking
35' 15' 15' 15' 15'
Street Yard Setback
Garage Setback 35' 20' 20' 20' 20'
Rear Yard Setback 20' 20' 10' 10' 10'
Side Yard Setback 5' 5' 5' 5' 5'
Open Space N/A N/A N/A N/A 10% gross area
Lot Size 40,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. 4,300 sq. ft. N/A
Lot Coverage 30% 50% 50% 60% 60%
Density 1 du/ac 4 du/ac 6 du/ac 10 du/ac 22 du/ac
Building Height 35' 35' 35' 35' 50'
SVMC 19.70.020 Permitted Uses Matrix.
Like the MFR zone, the CMU and MU zones allow for the full range of residential development from
single-family residential to multifamily. Residential development in these nonresidential zones must
comply with the density and dimensional standards of the MFR zone shown in Table 7. The exception
is single-family development in the NC zone, which must comply with the density and dimensional
standards of the adjacent single-family residential zone.
Transition Regulations
PRDs
As mentioned earlier in the document,
The flexible zoning requirements of PRDs are intended to
encourage imaginative design and the creation of
the City has transitional regulations that
permanent open space and a variety of housing types,
apply to properties where a more
and to maximize the efficiency in the layout of streets,
intensive zoning district abuts a less
utility networks, and other public improvements and
intensive zone. These code provisions
infrastructure.
place additional limitations on ground
PRDs are allowed in all five residential zones for projects
floor uses and regulate setbacks on
totaling at least 5 acres. Use and dimensional
effected properties.
requirements shown in Tables 6 and 7 apply, with some
exceptions.
Parking Standards
For projects of 10 acres or larger, commercial uses that
are allowed in the NC zone are also permitted.
Off-street parking requirements range
A 20 percent residential density bonus can be applied
from one stall per unit for ADUs up to
in exchange for dedicating 30 percent of the total
two stalls per unit for one- and two-
project area for open space.
family homes and townhomes. The
Townhome setbacks may be reduced on one side
required parking spaces for residential
from 5 feet to 2 feet.
uses (SVMC 22.50) can be found in
Zero-lot line townhomes are also permitted (SVMC
Attachment D.
19.40.100.A).
Chaz Bates, City of Spokane Valley Project No. 1932.01.01
November 4, 2020
Revised January 29, 2021
Page 17
Subdivision Regulations
Residential subdivisions that require dividing the land into nine or fewer lots may utilize the CityÔs
short subdivision process, while those creating ten or more lots are subject to the full subdivision
process. Short subdivisions are subject to Type II review procedures, while subdivisions require more
stringent Type III review; these reviews are discussed below.
Permit Procedures and Environmental review
The City has three distinct permit review processes, depending on the size and nature of the proposed
project, which are summarized in Table 8, below. Type I is the least intensive review, where permitting
decisions are made administratively and notice of application to other agencies and public hearings
are not required. Type II review processes are also made administratively. Preapplications are not
required, except for short subdivisions and binding site plans, and a notice of public hearing is not
required. Type III review processes are decided by a hearing examiner and all review processes are
required, including a preapplication conference and a public hearing.
Table 8: Required Application Procedures
Final Final
Pre- Counter-Fully Notice of
Application Decision Notice of decision Decision
application complete complete public
Type Authority application and timeline
conference determination determination hearing
notice ***
The
I O X X N/A N/A X 60 days
Department
The
*II**O X X X N/A X 120 days
Department
Hearing
III X X X X X X 120 days
examiner
X Required, O Optional, N/A Not Applicable.
*Does not apply to SEPA threshold determinations. Refer to SVMC 21.20.070(B)(2) for noticing requirements.
**Except for short subdivisions and binding site plans, which require a preapplication meeting.
***Timeline after the fully complete determination, fully complete determination is issued within 14 days of receiving the
application.
SMC 17.80.070.
ADUs and residential building permits that do not require State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
review are subject to Type I review. Projects requiring a SEPA determination and short subdivisions
(nine or fewer lots) are subject to Type II reviews. Type III review is reserved for subdivisions (ten or
more lots), PRDs, and conditional use permits, which are required for cottage housing and ADUs in
industrial zoning districts.
Chaz Bates, City of Spokane Valley Project No. 1932.01.01
November 4, 2020
Revised January 29, 2021
Page 18
Table 9: Assignment of Development Application Classification (portion)
Type Land Use and Development Application
Accessory dwelling units
Type I
Building permits not subject to SEPA
Binding site planÐpreliminary and final
SEPA threshold determination
Type II
Short subdivisionÐpreliminary and final
Preliminary short subdivision, binding site planÐchange of conditions
Conditional use permits (cottage housing, industrial ADUs)
Type III Planned residential developments (PRD)
SubdivisionsÐpreliminary
SMC 17.80.030.
SEPA Review
The City adopted the maximum allowable SEPA flexible thresholds for residential development in
2016 (SVMC 21.20.040.B). This provides a SEPA review exemption for developments of up to 30
single-family units and 60 multifamily units. This helps to reduce permit processing times and
environmental review requirements for projects that fall below these thresholds.
In 2016, the City exempted residential and mixed-used infill developments in the following four areas
of the city (SVMC 21.20.040.C) from SEPA review:
Carnahan Infill Development: Up to 698 new dwelling units.
East Sprague Infill Development: Up to 282 new dwelling units.
Mirabeau Infill Development: To qualify for an exemption, this area is subject to
participation in a voluntary developer agreement based on a Mirabeau traffic study
conducted by the City.
East Broadway Infill Development: Up to 852 new dwelling units.
In addition, developments that meet the criteria established for each area are not required to go
through SEPA review, reducing the time required for permitting and environmental analysis in these
areas as well. The City is considering ending the SEPA infill requirement of its process as it evaluates
adopting transportation impact fees.
Chaz Bates, City of Spokane Valley Project No. 1932.01.01
November 4, 2020
Revised January 29, 2021
Page 19
SECTION 3. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Barriers to Development of Existing Housing Types
The housing development process is defined in the SVMC and in practice by City staff. There is
sufficient development capacity on land in the city to support a range of new housing, and the zoning
regulations provide some flexibility for developers to deliver housing at a pace to meet the identified
housing needs assessment objective of at least 6,600 housing units by 2037, or around 351 units per
year. For reference, between 2010 and 2019 an average of 345 housing units were built per year.
The city is primarily a large-lot, single-family community. While residents have voiced appreciation for
those characteristics, a survey conducted for this project identified a desire for more housing choices,
including townhomes, ADUs, and cottages. Spokane Valley should continue to support robust
housing growth and advance strategies in support of housing growth for a diversity of housing types
and affordability levels in order to meet its target.
Several barriers impact the delivery of housing in general and specific types of housing, and some
barriers, such as market acceptance of housing types or the risk of prolonged appeal processes, are
beyond the CityÔs control. The following considerations are intended to help the City lower barriers
to development. These recommendations will be assessed further in the development of the HAP.
Comp Plan Policies and Goals
Consider policies that address housing displacement risk by encouraging housing
accessibility, equity, and mixed-income housing.
Draft a housing policy that emphasizes the CityÔs commitment to address homelessness.
Consider a land use policy that incentivizes the development of townhomes and cottages in
the R-4 zone.
Develop a goal to continue engaging with the cityÔs residents and the development
community on the opportunities for and barriers to developing a range of new housing
types.
Regulatory
Further amend the SVMC to support mixed-use housing. Develop incentives for mixed-use
projects that include commercial on the ground floor.
Ensure that the SVMC is prepared to encourage construction of modular homes for all
types of housing.
Identify barriers to ADU development and modify the SVMC to incentivize infill
development.
Chaz Bates, City of Spokane Valley Project No. 1932.01.01
November 4, 2020
Revised January 29, 2021
Page 20
Conduct subarea planning processes, including a Planned Action Environmental Impact
Statement. The resulting Planned Action Ordinance would streamline permit processes for
needed missing middle residential development types.
Affordable Housing Funding and Incentives
Outside of the flexibility allowed in its zoning regulations, the City has limited incentives to support
the development of a range of housing types that are attainable for a broad variety of household
incomes. The following incentives are for the CityÔs consideration and may be studied further as part
of the HAP process:
Adopt the multifamily property tax exemption incentive promoting mixed-income
developments.
Evaluate the use of public funds and partnerships to increase construction of affordable
housing and mixed-income developments. Examples of public funds include HB 1590 and a
voter-approved property tax levy (RCW 84.52.105), both of which support affordable
housing creation.
Share stormwater charges and permitting fees between the City and developers of low-
income housing.
Consider waiving the sales tax related to construction materials for projects that provide
affordable housing.
While not necessarily an incentive, funds from a voter-approved affordable housing levy
could be used to support the development of affordable housing.
Develop incentives focused on affordable housing preservation to encourage naturally
occurring affordable units.
ATTACHMENT A
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HOUSING-RELATED GOALS,
POLICIES, STRATEGIES, AND PRIORITIES
Chapter 2 of the 2017Ï2037 Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan lists the goals, policies, and strategies
that will guide the CityÔs efforts in realizing the communityÔs vision. The Comprehensive Plan notes
that:
Adopted Vision Statement
A community of opportunity where
Goals are broad statements of purpose.
individuals and families can grow
Policies provide specific direction to City staff.
and play, and businesses will
flourish and prosper.
Strategies represent initial, concrete actions to effect
implementation.
The following captures verbatim the goals, policies, and strategies from Chapter 2 that are relevant to
housing. The Community and Economic Development Priorities are included at the conclusion of
each Comprehensive Plan Element.
HOUSING ELEMENT
Goals
H-G1 Allow for a broad range of housing opportunities to meet the needs of the community.
H-G2 Enable the development of affordable housing for all income levels.
H-G3 Allow convenient access to daily goods and services in Spokane ValleyÔs neighborhoods.
Policies
H-P1 Support voluntary efforts by property owners to rehabilitate and preserve buildings of
historic value and unique character.
H-P2 Adopt development regulations that expand housing choices by allowing innovative
housing types, including tiny homes, accessory dwelling units, prefabricated homes,
cohousing, cottage housing, and other housing types.
H-P3 Use available financial and regulatory tools to support the development of affordable
housing units.
H-P4 Enable the creation of housing for resident individuals and families needing assistance
from social and human services providers.
Strategies
Identify low- and moderate-income housing needs.
Continue to evaluate new housing typologies to meet market needs.
Community and Economic Priorities
Encourage the Creation of Mixed-Use Destinations: Regionally, Kendall Yards in
Spokane has aroused interest as a relatively new style of development that embraces many
of the tenets of a movement called new urbanism. Residents, as well as investors, have
indicated interest in this type of development, which could anchor new regional retail,
attract overnight visitors, amplify positive publicity, and create new mixed-use housing
options.
Improve Housing Affordability: Substantial portions of the renter and homeowner
population are cost-burdened by rent and mortgage payments. An increase in multifamily
housing options would reduce the average rent for these units countywide, improving the
livelihood of cost-burdened residents. Furthermore, providing housing options that meet
the needs of local employees is critical to ensuring that local companies continue to have
access to capable workers.
Ensure a Range of Housing Options for Residents: As the cityÔs population ages and
the proportion of households with children continues to decrease, the demand for smaller
housing options will increase. During conversations with Spokane Valley residents, the
desire for new housing typologiesÐincluding cottages and tiny homesÐ arose repeatedly.
From an economic development standpoint, these typologies densify existing single-family
neighborhoods while enhancing neighborhood character, and therefore provide a captive
audience for neighborhood-serving retailers that create new jobs in the community and
draw visitors from nearby towns.
Enhance Distinctive Neighborhood Character: The Spokane Valley community
expressed a strong desire for more neighborhood amenities, such as nonchain restaurants,
boutiques, and local entertainment. These commercial features thrive in walkable, high-
density residential communities and may best be provided through mixed-use
development, where multifamily units can improve the financial feasibility of the
development project.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
Goals Relevant to Housing
ED-G1 Support economic opportunities and employment growth for Spokane Valley.
Policies Relevant to Housing
ED-P10 Enable the creation and retention of home-based businesses that are consistent with
neighborhood character.
LAND USE ELEMENT
Goals Relevant to Housing
LU-G1 Maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane Valley.
LU-G2 Provide for land uses that are essential to Spokane Valley residents, employees, and
visitors.
LU-G3 Support the transformation of commercial, industrial, and mixed-use areas into
accessible districts that attract economic activity.
LU-G4 Ensure that land use plans, regulations, review processes, and infrastructure
improvements support economic growth and vitality.
Policies Relevant to Housing
LU-P7 Protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses and adverse impacts
associated with transportation corridors.
LU-P9 Provide supportive regulation for new and innovative development types on
commercial, industrial, and mixed-use land.
LU-P13 Work collaboratively with landlords and developers that seek to provide mixed-use
residential projects.
LU-P14 Enable a variety of housing types.
LU-P15 Encourage development in commercial and mixed-use zones by reducing parking
requirements.
LU-P16 Maximize the density of development along major transit corridors and near transit
centers and commercial areas.
Strategies Relevant to Housing
Streamline permitting procedures based on feedback from business and landowners,
developers, etc.
Evaluate parking standards and reduce the amount of required parking if feasible.
Collaborate with the private sector to ensure the successful redevelopment of vacant land
at Mirabeau Point.
Community and Economic Priorities
Support neighborhood retail. The market trend indicating demand for more retail space
is mirrored by the communityÔs desire for an increased number of neighborhood
amenities. Spokane Valley residents reported significant demand for walkable retail options
in the community, both to enhance the quality of life and to develop distinctive
neighborhood identities.
Enhance local identity. The community has expressed a desire to develop more unique
neighborhood character. This includes encouraging the types of development that support
small, independent businesses, including mixed uses and greater density of housing in
certain areas. At the same time, the quality of the cityÔs single-family neighborhoods must
be preserved.
PUBLIC/PRIVATE UTILITIES ELEMENT
Goals Relevant to Housing
U-G1 Coordinate with utility providers to balance cost-effectiveness with environmental
protection, aesthetic impact, public safety, and public health.
Policies Relevant to Housing
U-P2 Promote the development of citywide communication networks using the most
advanced technology available.
ATTACHMENT B
HOUSING TYPE DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES
Single-family:
A building, manufactured or
modular home or portion thereof,
designed exclusively for single-
family residential purposes, with a
separate entrance and facilities
for cooking, sleeping, and
sanitation.
Image Credit: RYN Built Homes
Source: Spokane Valley Municipal Code, Appendix A
Definitions
Duplex:
An attached building designed
exclusively for occupancy by two
families, with separate entrances
and individual facilities for
cooking, sleeping, and sanitation,
but sharing a common or party
wall or stacked.
Image Credit: Keller Williams Spokane
Source: Spokane Valley Municipal Code, Appendix A
Definitions
Townhouse:
A single-family dwelling unit
constructed in groups of three or
more attached units in which
each unit extends from
foundation to roof, open on at
least two sides.
Image Credit: Realtor.com
Source: Spokane Valley Municipal Code, Appendix A
Definitions
Cottage:
A small single-family dwelling unit
developed as a group of dwelling
units clustered around a common
area pursuant to SVMC 19.40.050
as now adopted or hereafter
amended.
Image Credit: The Cottage Company
Source: Spokane Valley Municipal Code, Appendix A
Definitions
Accessory Dwelling Unit:
A freestanding detached
structure or an attached part of a
structure that is subordinate and
incidental to the primary dwelling
unit located on the same
property, providing complete,
independent living facilities
exclusively for a single
housekeeping unit, including
permanent provisions for living,
sleeping, cooking, and sanitation.
Image Credit: Lina Menard
Source: Spokane Valley Municipal Code, Appendix A
Definitions.
Manufactured (mobile) home:
A preassembled dwelling unit
transportable in one or more
sections, which is built on a
permanent chassis and is
designed for use with or without a
permanent foundation when
attached to the required utilities
certified by the Washington State
Department of Labor and
Industries. The term
Ñmanufactured homeÒ does not
include a Ñrecreational vehicle.Ò
Image Credit: Keller Williams Spokane
Source: Spokane Valley Municipal Code, Appendix A
Definitions.
Multifamily:
A building designed for
occupancy by three or more
families, with separate entrances
and individual facilities for
cooking, sleeping, and sanitation.
Townhouses are not considered
multifamily development.
Image Credit: Costar
Source: Spokane Valley Municipal Code, Appendix A
Definitions.
Modular construction:
Residences constructed entirely in
factories and transported to their
sites on flatbed trucks. They are
built under controlled conditions
and must meet strict quality-
control requirements before they
are delivered. They arrive as block
segments and are neatly
assembled, using cranes, into
homes that are almost
indistinguishable from
1
comparable ones built on site.
Image Credit: Timberland Homes
1
Nick Gromicko, Modular vs. Manufactured Homes, National Association of Certified Home Inspectors, accessed
12/23/20, https://www.nachi.org/modular-manufactured-homes.htm.
ATTACHMENT C
LIST OF ACTIVE HOUSING-SUPPORTIVE PROGRAMS
d
3
and
ity.
vice
of
s. It
nd
ety of districts
cottage development,
meless housing plan.
re allowed in a varimillion to homelessness ser
uld create a new residential
lopment, exempting
(RCW) 36.22.179 and RCW
living facilities in R-3 district
constructing, or operating a
lations. This zoning change led to a
fill developments in four areas of the c
es. Duplexes were permitted in the denser
tywide homeless housing programs. Because
oviders to apply for funds. In November
using. Transactions are taxed at a rate
goals of the local ho
s to allow for a variety of new housing types
accessory dwelling units,
for residential deve
s served by transit.
other housing types we
allocate more than $1.3
d Code of Washington
dents. As a result, an amendment is proposed, as a part of the
ing, townhomes, and assisted-
This can limit permit processing times and environmental review
2
dential and mixed-use in
ed to go through SEPA review, reducing the time required for
s were reviewed and approved by the Housing and Community
The new housing included
1
activity in Spokane County support coun
ed for homeless services to further the
dual lots and in home parks, and townhous
al (RFP) process for homelessness service pr
e SEPA flexible thresholds standards
and use tax for affordable and supportive ho
4
cation, two HHAA funds are administered locallyÐone by Spokane County (the County) an
at would prohibit cottage hous
which includes three representatives from the City.
rges are authorized by two statutes: Revise
amily units and 60 multifamily units.
e Valley (City) implemented new zoning regulation
fall below these thresholds.
held an RFP process for its 2020 funding cycle to
affordable housing options.
able housing units.
ronmental analysis.
Description In June 2016, the City of Spokantargeting smaller and more duplexes, manufactured homes on both indiviresidential districts (R-3 and Multifamily Residential) and mixed-use
districts. The throughout the city, provided they complied with the new supplemental development regusignificant increase in the number of new duplexes being permitted in the city.
New duplex development in the city raised some concern among resi2020 comprehensive plan updates, thwould also add supplemental use regulations to duplexes in R-3 zones. The proposed
amendment wozone, R-4, that would allow greater density and alternative housing types in areaThe City has adopted the maximum allowabldevelopments of up to 30 single-frequirements for
projects thatThe City has implemented an exemption from SEPA review for resiDevelopments that meet the criteria for each area are not requirpermitting and enviIn February 2020, the
City adopted a sales 0.0073 percent of the selling price or value. The funds can be used for acquiring, rehabilitating,maintaining new affordHHAA document recording surcha36.22.1971.
The recording fee funds must be usCurrently, HHAA recording fees generated fromthe City of Spokane receives a direct alloother by the City of Spokane. The County hosts an HHAA request-for-proposDece
mber 2019, the Countyproviders with contracts spanning 18 months. Funding decisionDevelopment Advisory Committee,
Accessory dwelling unitsIndustrial accessorydwelling unitsCottage developmentDuplexesManufactured homesTownhouses
Program Housing Diversity Alternative Residential Development Options: Streamlined Permitting State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) ExemptionÐFlexible Thresholds SEPA ExemptionÐInfill
Development Housing Sales and Use Tax for Affordable and Supportive Housing Homeless Housing Assistance Act (HHAA) Funds
SVMC Chapter 19.40 Alternative Residential Development Options. SVMC Section 21.29.040 Categorical exemptions. Ibid. RCW 82.14.540 Affordable and supportive housing- Sales and use
tax.
EXISTING HOUSING CODE AND PROGRAMS 1234
in
e
d
nd
and
,
ding
on,
lley
in 2020.
Housing
This
te funds
.
able housing. In Washingt
They also manage Section 8
a competitive RFP to solicit
Twelve projects in Spokane Va
venue generated from the recor
using and Community Development
is currently developing a pre-
ty investor to provide immedia
6
rrently closed because of high demand a
pplications that can be funded each cycle
or below 50 percent of the area median
pates receiving $1.65 million in CDBG funds
a tax credit being assigned to the project.
5
housing projects across the county.
for the fund are generated from a document recording
housing units in the region.
based on their Annual Action Plan and guidance from th
are typically offered through
the development of new afford
https://www.spokanecounty.org/4690/9-LIHTC
ty to use 60 percent of the re
recommend for funding.
remain affordable for 30 years.
nance Commission. LIHTC funds can also be used to rehabilitate
at allows the Spokane County Ho
State LIHTC policies, the County
tax obligations or sold to an equi
phic pools, which limits the number of a
itlist for the housing voucher program is cu
ges 846 units of affordable
that earn at or below 50 percent of the area median income and that have not pai
funds. The County does this
atute allows the Coun
Housing Trust Fund. Revenues
Ò accessed Sept. 17, 2020,
ance Program Grant that is intended to prevent evictions by paying past due, current
n per funding round to
e of housing serving households making at
federal funding source for
other service providers. The County antici
support new and existing affordable
t Advisory Committee. The funds
ess for LIHTC is extremely competitive, with far more applicants than funding available. The
le units created are required to
lopments. A successful LIHTC application results in
HTC, creating 675 affordable housing units since 2000.
.
tion Pre-Application process,
Description LIHTC is the longest-running and only currentthe program is administered by the Washington State Housing Fiexisting affordable housing devecredit can be either retained by
the developer to offset their for the development. The affordabhave taken advantage of LIThe application and selection procFinance Commission allocates funding to geograSpokane County.
As a result of recent changes to Washington application process to select one applicatioThe County manages the regionÔs Affordablefee of $10 authorized by RCW 36.22.178. The stfee for
building, operation, and maintenancincome. The County uses these funds toSpokane Valley is a member of an Urban County Consortium thDivision to administer federal HOME and CDBGHousing
and Community Developmenaffordable housing project proposals from The County manages the Eviction Rent Assistand future rent. The program serves householdsor partially paid one month
of rent. The Spokane Housing Authority owns and managrant-based housing voucher programs. The walimited funding.
https://lihtc.huduser.gov
Program Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) Affordable Housing Trust Fund Federal HOME funds and Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) Eviction Rent Assistance Program Subsidized
Housing and Housing Voucher program
HUD, ÑLIHTC Database,Ò 2018, Spokane County, Ñ2021 9% LIHTC Metro-Pool Prioritiza
56
ATTACHMENT D
ZONING CODE REFERENCE
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY ZONING DISTRICTS
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Zoning District Code Zoning District
Single-Family Residential R-1Single-Family Residential Estate
Single-Family Residential R-2Single-Family Residential Suburban
Single-Family Residential R-3Single-Family Residential
Single-Family Residential R-4Single-Family Residential Urban
Multifamily Residential MFR Multifamily Residential
Mixed Use MU Mixed Use
Corridor Mixed Use CMU Corridor Mixed Use
Neighborhood Commercial NC Neighborhood Commercial
Regional Commercial RC Regional Commercial
Industrial I Industrial
Industrial Mixed Use IMU Industrial Mixed Use
SVMC 19.20.010 Zoning districts
RESIDENTIAL PERMITTED USE TABLE
Residential Mixed-Use Commercial Industrial
R-1R-2R-3R-4MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU I
Residential
Dwelling, accessory
S S S S S S S S S
units
Dwelling, caretakerÔs
S S S S S
residence
Dwelling, cottage S S S S
Dwelling, duplex S P P P P
Dwelling, industrial
S S
accessory dwelling unit
Dwelling, multifamily P P P
Dwelling, single-family P P P P P P P P
Dwelling, townhouse S S S S S
Manufactured home
S S S
park
SVMC 19.60.050 Permitted Uses Matrix
P= Permitted.
S= Supplemental Use Regulations.
RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS TABLE
(1)
R-1R-2R-3R-4MFR
Front and Flanking
35' 15' 15' 15' 15'
Street Yard Setback
(2)
Garage Setback 35' 20' 20' 20' 20'
Rear Yard Setback 20' 20' 10' 10' 10'
Side Yard Setback 5' 5' 5' 5' 5'
Minimum
10% gross
Open Space N/A N/A N/A N/A
(3)
area
(6)(4)
Lot Size 40,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. 4,300 sq. ft. N/A
Lot Coverage 30% 50% 50% 60% 60%
Density 1 du/ac 4 du/ac 6 du/ac 10 du/ac 22 du/ac
Maximum
(5)
Building Height 35' 35' 35' 35' 50'
-1
Where MFR abuts R-1, R-2, or R-3 zones, development shall comply with the provisions of
Chapter 19.75 SVMC, Transitional Regulations. (hyperlink to existing code)
-2
Attached garages, where the garage door does not face the street, may have the same setback as
the primary structure.
-3
Open-space requirement does not apply to single-family development in the MFR zone.
-4
Single-family residential development in the MFR zone shall have a minimum lot size of 2,000 square
feet per dwelling unit. Only one single-family dwelling shall be allowed per lot.
-5
The vertical distance from the average finished grade to the average height of the highest roof
surface.
-6
Duplex development in R-3 zone shall have a minimum lot size of 14,500 square feet.
SVMC 19.70.020 Permitted uses matrix
SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS FOR ALTERNATIVE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
Definition: a freestanding detached structure or an attached part of a structure that is subordinate and
incidental to the primary dwelling unit located on the same property, providing complete, independent
living facilities exclusively for a single housekeeping unit, including permanent provisions for living,
sleeping, cooking, and sanitation. See ÑResidential, use category.Ò
Site
One ADU is allowed per lot.
One off-street parking space is required.
Building
Must be similar in appearance to single-family home in finish, roof pitch, trim, and
windows.
The entrance should be located on the side or rear of the unit.
Must be at least 300 square feet.
Cannot exceed 50 percent of the habitable square footage of the primary unit.
Footprint cannot exceed 10 percent of the lot area or 1,000 square feet, whichever is
greater.
Cannot have more than two bedrooms.
Other
Located behind the front building setback line and placed on a permanent foundation.
Preserve all side yard and rear yard setbacks for a dwelling unit.
Not allowed on lots containing a duplex, multifamily dwelling, or accessory apartment.
The owner must occupy either the primary dwelling unit or the ADU as their permanent
residence for six months or more of the calendar year and at no time receive rent for the
owner-occupied unit.
A deed restriction shall be recorded with the Spokane County auditor to indicate the
presence of an ADU, the requirement of owner occupancy, and other standards for
maintaining the unit as described in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC).
Industrial ADUs
Definition: A dwelling unit within a primary building located in the industrial zone for occupancy by a
person or family for living and sleeping purposes.
Site
An industrial ADU may be developed in conjunction with either an existing or new
building.
The maximum number of allowed industrial ADUs is ten per site.
One off-street parking space for each ADU is required in addition to the off-street parking
required for the primary use.
Building
The ADU, excluding any garage area, is prohibited on the first floor of the building.
The ADU unit shall not have more than two bedrooms.
Permit Type
Industrial accessory dwelling units shall require approval of a conditional use permit
pursuant to Chapter 19.150 SVMC.
Cottage development
Definition: A small single-family dwelling unit developed as a group of dwelling units clustered around
a common area pursuant to SVMC 19.40.050 as now adopted or hereafter amended.
Site
The design of a cottage development shall take into account the relationship of the site
to the surrounding areas. The perimeter of the site shall be designed to minimize adverse
impact of the cottage development on adjacent properties and, conversely, to minimize
adverse impact of adjacent land use and development characteristics on the cottage
development.
The maximum density shall be two times the maximum number of dwelling units allowed
in the underlying zone.
Where feasible, each cottage that abuts a common open space shall have a primary entry
and/or covered porch oriented to the common open space.
Buildings shall meet the following minimum setback standards:
Twenty-two-foot front yard setback.
Ten-foot rear yard setback.
Five-foot side yard setback.
Common open space is required and shall meet the following criteria:
Four hundred square feet of common open space per cottage.
Setbacks and private open space shall not be counted toward the common open space.
One common open space shall be located centrally to the project, with pathways
connecting the common open space to the cottages and any shared garage building
and community building.
Cottages shall surround the common open space on a minimum of two sides of the
open space.
Community buildings may be counted toward the common open space requirement.
One and one-half off-street parking spaces for each cottage are required.
Building
Cottages shall not exceed 900 square feet, excluding any loft or partial second story and
porches. A cottage may include an attached garage, not to exceed an additional 300 square
feet.
The building height for a cottage shall not exceed 25 feet.
The building height for any attached garage or shared garage building shall not exceed 20
feet.
Buildings shall be varied in height, size, proportionality, orientation, rooflines, doors,
windows, and building materials.
Porches shall be required.
Other
ADUs are prohibited.
All other SVMC provisions that are applicable to a single-family dwelling unit shall be met.
SVMC Title 20, Subdivision Regulations. The design requirements of SVMC 20.20.090
are waived.
Permit Type
Cottage development shall require approval of a conditional use permit pursuant to
Chapter 19.150 SVMC.
Community buildings
Community buildings are encouraged in cottage developments. Community buildings shall
meet the following criteria:
They shall be clearly incidental in use and shall not exceed 1,000 square feet.
They shall be no more than 20 feet in height.
They shall be commonly owned and maintained by the property owners.
Duplexes
Definition: An attached building designed exclusively for occupancy by two families, with separate
entrances and individual facilities for cooking, sleeping, and sanitation, but sharing a common or party
wall or stacked. See ÑResidential, use category.Ò
Duplex development in the R-3 zone shall have a minimum lot size of 14,500 square feet.
Duplex development in nonresidential zones shall meet the requirements set forth in
SVMC 19.70.050(G).
Manufactured homes on individual lots
Definition: A preassembled dwelling unit transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a
permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when attached to
the required utilities certified by the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries. The term
Ñmanufactured homeÒ does not include a Ñrecreational vehicle.Ò
Homes built to 42 U.S.C. 70 Sections 5401 through 5403 standards (as they may be amended) are
regulated for the purposes of siting in the same manner as site-built homes, factory-built homes, or
homes built to any other state construction or local design standard, provided that the manufactured
home shall:
Be set upon a permanent foundation, as specified by the manufacturer, and that the space
from the bottom of the home to the ground be enclosed by concrete or an approved
product that can be either load-bearing or decorative.
Comply with all local design standards, including the requirement for a pitched roof with
a slope of not less than 3:12, applicable to all other homes in the neighborhood in which
the manufactured home is to be located.
Be thermally equivalent to the State Energy Code.
Otherwise meet all other requirements for a designated manufactured home as defined in
RCW 35.63.160.
SVMC 19.40.070 does not override any legally recorded covenants or deed restrictions of record.
An existing single-wide manufactured home may be replaced with a new single-wide manufactured
home when replacement is initiated within 12 months of the date of damage representing less than 80
percent of market value, or removal of the existing habitable manufactured home.
Manufactured homes with dimensional features that match or closely match the predominant
manufactured home type within a manufactured home subdivision may be placed in the manufactured
home subdivision without regard to the age of the manufactured home (Ord. 16-018 § 6 (Att. B),
2016).
Manufactured home parks
Definition: A site having as its primary use the rental of space for occupancy by two or more
manufactured (mobile) homes, and the accessory buildings, structures, and uses customarily incidental
to such homes. See ÑResidential, use category.Ò
Manufactured home parks shall require approval of a binding site plan and site plan review pursuant
to SVMC Title 20, Subdivision Regulations, and Chapter 19.130 SVMC, Site Plan Review.
Manufactured home park density shall be consistent with the zoning classification in which they are
located, not to exceed 12 units per acre. A minimum of five manufactured-home spaces shall be
required per park.
Manufactured home parks shall provide at least 10 percent of the gross area of the park for common
open space for the use of its residents.
Each manufactured home space shall have direct frontage on a public or private street.
The minimum setbacks shall be pursuant to Table 19.40-1.
Minimum setback from the Minimum setback from the
property lines of individual in boundary of the manufactured
park spaces home park
Front Side Rear Side Rear Right-of-
Yard Yard Yard Yard Yard Way
Manufactured homes 5Ô 5Ô 5Ô 10Ô 10Ô 20Ô
Patio covers, decks, landings,
5Ô 5Ô 5Ô 5Ô 5Ô 20Ô
awnings
Carports 5Ô 5Ô 5Ô 5Ô 5Ô 20Ô
Townhouses
Definition: A single-family dwelling unit constructed in groups of three or more attached units in which
each unit extends from foundation to roof, open on at least two sides. See ÑResidential, use category.Ò
In zero lot line developments approved as part of a planned residential development, zero setbacks
along one side are allowed, provided a 2-foot maintenance easement is recorded as part of the
subdivision plan.
Townhouses located on individual lots shall meet minimum rear, front, and side yard requirements
(where applicable), minimum area requirements, maximum lot coverage, and building height
requirements shown in Table 19.70-1. Townhouses are subject to the following requirements:
No more than six dwelling units shall be attached in one continuous row or group.
A townhouse unit shall not be constructed above another townhouse unit.
There shall be a side yard on each side of a contiguous row or group of dwellings of not
less than 6 feet.
Townhouses included in a condominium development may limit the lot to the building footprint,
provided that the yard area shared in common with all units is equivalent in area to the yard required
by the underlying zone (Ord. 16-018 § 6 (Att. B), 2016).
Homeowner or property owner association required
In a cottage development or manufactured home park, a property ownersÔ or homeownersÔ association
shall be established for the purpose of ownership, maintenance, and management of open spaces,
common areas, buildings, and private streets as required by the provisions of the SVMC (Ord. 16-018
§6 (Att. B), 2016).
PERMIT PROCESSES
Permit Type and Land Use Application
Final Final
Pre-Counter-Fully Notice of
Application Decision Notice of decision Decision
application complete complete public
Type Authority application and timeline
conference determination determination hearing
notice ***
The
I O X X N/A N/A X 60 days
department
The
II* O** X X X N/A X 120 days
department
Hearing
III X X X X X X 120 days
examiner
X Required O Optional N/A Not Applicable
*Does not apply to SEPA threshold determinations. Refer to SVMC 21.20.070(B)(2) for noticing requirements.
**Except for short subdivisions and binding site plans, which require a preapplication meeting.
***Timeline after the fully complete determination; fully complete determination is issued within 14 days of receiving
the application.
Accessory dwelling units 19.40
Type I Building permits not subject to SEPA 21.20.040
Floodplain development 21.30
Binding site planÐpreliminary and final 20.50
Binding site planÐchange of conditions 20.50
SEPA threshold determination 21.20.060
Shoreline conditional use permit 21.50
Type II Shoreline nonconforming use or structure review 21.50
Shoreline substantial development permit 21.50
Shoreline variance 21.50
Short subdivisionÐpreliminary and final 20.30, 20.40
Preliminary short subdivision, binding site planÐchange of conditions 20.30
Conditional use permits 19.150
Type III Planned residential developments 19.50
SubdivisionsÐpreliminary 20.30
REQUIRED PARKING SPACES
Table 22.50-1ÐRequired Parking Spaces for Specific Uses
Use Required Parking
Residential
Dwelling, accessory units 1 per dwelling unit
Dwelling, multifamily, studio, and one bedroom 1 per dwelling unit, plus 5% of total for guests
Dwelling, multifamily, two or more bedrooms 1.5 per dwelling unit, plus 5% of total for guests
Dwelling, one- and two-family, townhouse 2 per dwelling unit
Manufactured (mobile) home park 2 per dwelling unit plus 5% total for guest parking
Group Living
Assisted living facility/convalescent/nursing home 1 per 4 residents plus 1 per staff on largest shift
Community residential facility 1 per 4 residents
Dwelling, congregate 1 per sleeping room
https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/SpokaneValley/#!/SpokaneValley22/SpokaneValley2250.html#22.50
UBC$:
APPENDIX D
SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
MEMORANDUM
To:Chaz Bates Date: March 4, 2021
From: Kate Elliott Project No.: 1932.01.01
Matt Hoffman
RE: City of Spokane Valley Housing Action Plan Public Engagement Summary
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. (MFA) led a public engagement process to gather stakeholder input to
inform the Housing Action Plan (HAP) as it was developed. These efforts engaged key stakeholders
including community members, workers, businesses, nonprofit organizations, service providers,
housing developers and housing managers, and others to understand their priorities related to housing
in the City of Spokane Valley(City). Their priorities were foundational in developing the HAP.
The Community Engagement Plan (CEP) for the City of Spokane Valley’s HAP was developed in
accordance with the Washington State Department of Commerce’s Guidance for Developing a
Housing Action Plan (Public Review Draft).
The summary below outlines the findings from the community engagement efforts which included an
online survey and stakeholder interviews. Project updates were provided to our key stakeholders and
the general public using email and listserv updates, media updates and media interviews, and an article
in the city magazine which is mailed to every address in the city. The purpose of the project updates
was to ensure the community was aware of project status, milestones, upcoming engagement
opportunities, and ways to get involved and provide input.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT APPROACH
The CEP details the goals, approach, and methodology that were conducted for this project. The final
CEP is included in Attachment A of this summary.
The engagement effort was developed around the goal of understanding the community’s housing
priorities including opportunities and challenges. The plan focused on providing background
information necessary for the public to understand the purpose, need, and value of a HAP and the
importance of providing diverse, affordable housing to support inclusive neighborhoods.
Chaz Bates Project No. 1932.01.01
March 4, 2021
Page 2
Community input was used to shape the direction of the HAP’s strategies and recommendations.
Draft strategies and recommendations were then reviewed by staff and theCity Council, and the final
HAP, once prepared, will be distributed to the public for further comment and refined based on
feedback prior to adoption. A list of the outreach tactics used in development of the HAPis
summarized in the table.
Table: List of Outreach Tactics
Month Outreach Tactics
Summer 2020 Community engagement plan
Project web page, materials, and “on-hold” message for the City of Spokane Valley
general phone line
Stakeholder interviews
Community and partner update describing the HAP purpose, need, and process
Fall 2020 Community survey #1 about the current state of housing and housing needs (Survey
was live 9/21–10/19)
Website updates regarding project status
Winter 2020–21 City magazine article about the HAP (quarterly magazine mailed to all addresses
in November 2020)
Council/Commission check-ins with opportunity for public input
Website updates regarding project status
Community and partner update on project status
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FINDINGS
In September and October 2020, MFA conducted an online public survey and stakeholder interviews.
The survey garnered 124 responses. Following the survey, MFA conducted stakeholder interviews
with 15 housing-related professionals involved in the development of housing, management of
housing, and programs that support housing ownership and affordable housing. The interviews helped
expand on the themes identified from the survey responses to help build out the context for the
community’s priorities around housing.
SURVEY FINDINGS
The following sections summarize the responses and sentiment in the community survey. The survey
was fielded using SurveyMonkey from September21 to October 19, 2020 and received 124 responses.
The Spokane Valley community was well represented, and demographics of those that took the survey
aligned closely to the overall makeup of the city. Survey demographics can be found in Figures 1
through 3 in Attachment B of this summary.
COVID-19 impacts to housing
At the time of the survey, 13 percent of responses noted impacts to their housing situation due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, and an additional five percent said they expect to be impactedin the future.
C:\\Users\\cbates\\AppData\\Local\\Microsoft\\Windows\\INetCache\\Content.Outlook\\HBQ0H6P9\\Community Engagement Summary Memo.docx
Chaz Bates Project No. 1932.01.01
March 4, 2021
Page 3
Respondents noted a number of reasons they were unable to keep up with rent or housing payments
including losing jobs, changes in income, and businesses shutting down. The figure summarizes this
input.
Figure: Impacts of COVID-19
Owners and renters in Spokane Valley
The survey asked whether the respondents owned or rented their homes. All respondents answered
this question and 75 percent were owners—56 percent owned with a mortgageand 19 percent owned
free and clear. Renters accounted for 23 percent of the responses. The other three respondents either
occupied their unit without payment of rent or they did not have stable housing.
Barriers to renting in Spokane Valley
Only 25 of the 124 respondents (20 percent) identified as renters. This question allowed respondents
to select more than one choice. The 25 respondents provided a total of 31 responses. Of these 31
responses, 77 percent said finding affordable housing in the city was a barrier to renting. Challenges
included not being able to find affordable housing (61 percent identified this as a barrier), 10 percent
identified as a barrier not being able to find housing that accepted housing vouchers, and six percent
said past evictions, or no ADA-available units was a barrier. The remaining 23 percent of renters did
not experience any barriers to renting. Figure 4 of Attachment B includes a summary of this data and
further demographic information.
Barriers to purchasing a home in Spokane Valley
This question asked if respondents had recently tried to buy or bought a home and allowed
respondents to select more than one answer. The 102 responses include renters and homeowners. Of
C:\\Users\\cbates\\AppData\\Local\\Microsoft\\Windows\\INetCache\\Content.Outlook\\HBQ0H6P9\\Community Engagement Summary Memo.docx
Chaz Bates Project No. 1932.01.01
March 4, 2021
Page 4
this total, 23 percent said affordability was a barrier, and 18 percent could not afford a down payment.
Others noted difficulty finding the right type of housing, being outbid, or not finding a place in the
location they wanted. Less than half of the respondents did not encounter any barriers (45 percent, or
29 of 64). Figure 5 of Attachment B includes a summary of this data and further demographics.
Types of housing in Spokane Valley
Of the 124 respondents, 109 indicated the type of housing that they currently live in. Single-family
homes accounted for 80 percent of where respondents live, while the next most common housing
type was multifamily homes at 13 percent. Figure 6 of Attachment B includes a summary of this data
and further demographics.
Favored housing types for Spokane Valley
Respondents were also asked what type of housing they would like to live in. Of the 124 respondents
107 provided at least one answer. Respondents could select more than one housing type and a total
of 159 housing types were selected. Single-family homes were the most desired housing type at 60
percent of responses, though nearly all the respondents (90 percent) included single-family homes as
one of their choices. The next most favored were:
Cottages: 16 percent of the total responses with 24 percent of the respondents selecting
this choice.
Townhomes: Nine percent of the responses with 13 percent of the respondents selecting
this choice.
Duplex: Seven percent of the responses with 10 percent of the respondents selecting this
choice.
Figure 7 of Attachment B includes a summary of the 159 responses and further demographics.
Housing options with the greatest need
Respondents were asked what kind of housing options are in greatest need in Spokane Valley. Of the
124 respondents, 93 provided at least one answer. Respondents could select more than one type of
housing and a total of 206 responses were provided. Of the 93 respondents, 73 percent felt more
affordable ownership housing options were the greatest need. The other two most frequently selected
needs were the desire for more affordable housing for seniors, with 48 percent selecting this choice,
and the desire for more flexibility for single-family homeowners to build accessory dwelling units,
such as backyard cottages, with 44 percent selecting this choice. Figure 8 of Attachment B includes a
summary of the 206 responses and further demographics.
C:\\Users\\cbates\\AppData\\Local\\Microsoft\\Windows\\INetCache\\Content.Outlook\\HBQ0H6P9\\Community Engagement Summary Memo.docx
Chaz Bates Project No. 1932.01.01
March 4, 2021
Page 5
Open-ended questions
Impacts to the quality of living in Spokane Valley
When asked about issues or challenges that impacted their quality of life, responses ranged from lack
of affordable housing to pesky neighbors. Respondents noted that higher drug, crime, and
homelessness areas are often also lower income housing areas. The desire for recreation and parks
was mentioned several times. A list of quotes from this open-ended question can be found after Figure
8 of Attachment B.
Ways the City can improve housing
When asked about how Spokane Valley can improve housing for the community most respondents
noted either a need for encouraging the development of more affordable housing and promoting more
housing choices. A list of quotes from this open-ended question can be found after Figure 8 of
Attachment B.
Primary reason for living in Spokane Valley
The final question asked respondents why they lived in the Spokane Valley. Many respondents were
either born and raised or work in the area. Responses indicated that apart from train traffic, the
Spokane Valley is a quiet community with less vehicle traffic and fewer challenges associated with
bigger cities. Good schools and great quality of life were noted many times, as well as ease of access
to Interstate 90. A list of quotes from this open-ended question can be found after Figure 8 of
Attachment B.
STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS
The stakeholder interviews generated a wealth of information, and the content of each interview was
analyzed to identify similar and distinct key themes and insights, all of which informed the HAP. The
15 interviewees, listed below, included housing developers, nonprofit service providers and
developers, and housing advocates. Their experiences provided insights into housing challenges and
opportunities specific to Spokane Valley and directly informed the development of the housing
polices.
1.Dennis Crapo, Diamond Rock Construction
2.Lanzce Douglas, Douglas Properties
3.Deb Elzinga, Community Frameworks
4.Jim Frank, Greenstone
5.Michelle Girardot, Habitat for Humanity
6.Rob Higgins, Spokane Association of REALTORS
7.Julie Honekamp, SNAP
8.Ray Kimball, Whipple Engineering
9.Jonathan Mallahan, Catholic Charities
10.Jennyfer Mesa, Latinos en Spokane
C:\\Users\\cbates\\AppData\\Local\\Microsoft\\Windows\\INetCache\\Content.Outlook\\HBQ0H6P9\\Community Engagement Summary Memo.docx
Chaz Bates Project No. 1932.01.01
March 4, 2021
Page 6
11.Dave Roberts, Spokane Housing Ventures
12.Ben Stuckart, Spokane Low Income Housing Consortium
13.Todd Walton, Inland Group
14.Darin Watkins, Spokane Association of REALTORS
15.Joel White, Spokane Home Builders Association
Summary of Findings
Development process
Input from the developers interviewed was that development process in Spokane Valley is working
efficiently for permitting and constructing new single-family and multifamily housing. Interviewees
indicated positive experiences working with building officials and Spokane Valley staff navigating the
permit process. The fee schedules are in line with the market. However, those involved with
developing affordable housing noted there would be an added benefit to an otherwise challenging
development pro forma if the city reducedor waived fees for affordable housing projects.
Competitive and limited affordable housing funding sources
Federal, state, and local funds for affordable housing are limited and highly competitive and there is
limited funding available for distribution to projects annually. There are only two qualified census
tracts in the city, 117.02 and 118.00. Affordable housing developments in qualified census tracts that
apply for low-income housing tax credit funding receive a boost in the amount of tax credits they can
receive. These tax credits are important for making regulated affordable housing projects feasible.
Opportunities to encourage housing development
Several interviewees noted that there is very limited inventory for starter homes, and the gap in missing
middle housing in Spokane Valley is real. A range of ideas were offered based on the interviewees’
professional experience and their conversations with the community. The following bullets summarize
the ideas:
Low-Income Households
Rent deposits and documentation requirements can be hurdles for portions of the
population. Consider programs or policies that address this hurdle.
Down payment assistance for first time home buyers.
Acknowledge equity and race in the comprehensive plan to position the city to address
housing equity.
Consider a city compliance office to collect and address compliance incidents.
Limited equity co-ops are a means to create wealth and home ownership for long-term
tenants. Challenges include patient investors and gap financing. The other model often
noted is shared equity. These programs do not require city intervention. The city may
C:\\Users\\cbates\\AppData\\Local\\Microsoft\\Windows\\INetCache\\Content.Outlook\\HBQ0H6P9\\Community Engagement Summary Memo.docx
Chaz Bates Project No. 1932.01.01
March 4, 2021
Page 7
provide resources and information, and/or provide financial support for limited equity
co-ops if it creates a housing fund.
Programs and Incentives
Provide housing around state and federally supported transportation investments. Planned
Action Environmental Impact Statements may provide additional incentives for
developing housing in these areas by reducing the project-level permitting process.
Several interviewees noted the potential benefits of implementing a multifamily tax
exemption program.
Create a Planned Residential Development track for smaller lots (less than five acres) that
provide affordable housing and/or missing middle housing types.
Offer nonprofits the first right of refusal to develop affordable housing units on city-
owned properties or properties with a lien.
Brownfields may provide land opportunities not sought by market-rate developers.
Outreach and Partnerships
A regional communications campaign dispelling housing myths and showing the positive
benefits of healthy homes.
Partner with neighborhood groups or support the creation of one that is focused on
Spokane Valley. SNAP (Spokane Neighborhood Action Partners) is a model.
Seek partnerships with private entities seeking philanthropic endeavors. A local example is
a project in northeast Spokane that was built by Spokane Housing Ventures in partnership
with Empire Health Foundation. Traditional affordable housing funding sources were
used as was support from the foundation.
Threats to housing development and preservation of affordable units
Several interviewees mentioned threats to housing development and the need to preserve affordable
units. A range of ideas were offered based on the interviewees’ professional experience and their many
conversations with the community. The following bullets summarize the ideas:
Lumber prices have gone up by more than 120 percent over the past year. There is not
anything the city can do about this, but these increased costs directly impact housing prices.
Labor shortages impact development costs. It was noted that encouraging more trade jobs
through apprenticeship programs or partnerships could help grow the workforce that may
reduce labor availability and related development cost impacts.
Vintage affordable housing units that need rehabilitation could be an area of focus. The
rehabilitation costs require debt, and the financial package may require higher incomes.
C:\\Users\\cbates\\AppData\\Local\\Microsoft\\Windows\\INetCache\\Content.Outlook\\HBQ0H6P9\\Community Engagement Summary Memo.docx
Chaz Bates Project No. 1932.01.01
March 4, 2021
Page 8
The unintended consequence is a loss of units that serve the 30 percent or less AMI
households.
One developer shared about a single-family subdivision that was subject to public
comment and SEPA review being held up because of protest from nearby residents
despite complying with local code.
External forces driving developers from Spokane County
Developers that have been active in Spokane County indicated that they are seeking development
opportunities in northern Idaho where the housing market is similar but wherethere is significantly
less state regulation. Interviewees noted the diminishing availability of large tracks of unimproved land
in Washington and the increasing cost of land relative to Idaho as driving forces. There was a strong
desire to expand the Urban Growth Boundary to provide more land to develop housing. Several
interviewees cited that the energy code revisions adopted by Washington will add costs to home
development. These measures, which take effect in 2021, increase development costs which are passed
through to the home buyer. Finally, Washington state’s condominium laws create a disincentive to
develop this type of attainable housing due to insurance requirements. Condominium law reform is
needed to encourage development of higher density condominium buildings that may offer affordable
home ownership options.
PRE HAP-ADOPTION OUTREACH
Community input was used to shape the direction of the HAP’s strategies and recommendations.
Draft strategies and recommendations were then reviewed by staff and the City Council, and the
final HAP, once prepared, will be posted on the HAP project web page
(https://www.spokanevalley.org/HAP), distributed to the public for further comment, and refined
based on feedback prior to adoption.
C:\\Users\\cbates\\AppData\\Local\\Microsoft\\Windows\\INetCache\\Content.Outlook\\HBQ0H6P9\\Community Engagement Summary Memo.docx
ATTACHMENT A
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN
City of Spokane Valley Housing Action Plan
Community Engagement Plan
Background
In 2019, the Washington State Legislature passed Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill
1923 (E2SHB 1923) encouraging all cities planning under the Growth Management Act
to adopt actions to increase residential building capacity. Of the options provided by
E2SHB 1923, the city opted to complete a housing action plan. The Washington State
Department of Commerce (Commerce) provided grant funding for the development
of a housing action plan. Source: City of Spokane Valley (City) RFP.
The goal of a housing action plan is to encourage construction of additional affordable
and market rate housing in a greater variety of housing types and at prices that are
accessible to a greater variety of incomes. To do this the City will quantify existing and
projected housing needs for all income levels, develop strategies to increase the supply
of housing while minimizing displacement of low-income residents. Source: E2SHB 1923.
An important part of the Housing Action Plan (HAP) is gathering input from the
community and key stakeholders. This community engagement plan (CEP) outlines the
goals, key messages, tactics, and an implementation schedule for the City to
effectively engage its audiences for the purposes of developing its HAP.
The community views City efforts positively. Like many Washingtonians, the Spokane
Valley community would benefit from additional information about the current housing
situation and the background on why the state passed E2SHB 1923.
The Housing Action Plan CEP is designed to engage with stakeholders and solicit their
input and engage with the broader community to gather feedback and increase
awareness of housing needs and opportunities in the community.
Due to the rapidly changing COVID-19 situation, this plan uses web-based
technologies, online tools, and virtual meetings.
This CEP for the City’s HAP was developed in accordance with Commerce’s Guidance
for Developing a Housing Action Plan (Public Review Draft).
Outreach and engagement goals
Integrate with City staff in the HAP planning process
Foster a two-way dialogue with stakeholders and community members
Allow stakeholders and the broader community to feel heard, informed,
involved, and invested in
Build trust between the City and the community throughout the
engagement process
Key messages
In 2019, the Washington State Legislature passed a bill (E2SHB 1923)
encouraging cities to adopt actions to increase residential building capacity.
The goal of this HAP is to encourage construction of a greater variety of housing
types at prices that are accessible to a greater variety of incomes.
When complete, the HAP will include information on the existing housing stock
in the City, projected housing needs for all income levels, and strategies to
FINAL 7/15/2020 1
increase the supply of housing while minimizing displacement of low-income
residents.
The development of the HAP is funded by a grant from Commerce.
Key milestones
Q2 April–June 2020
Project initiation
Deliverable 1 Community Engagement Plan 6/30/2020
Q3 July–September 2020
Stakeholder interviews
Community survey #1
Deliverable 2 Housing Needs Assessment Report 7/30/2020
Council/Commission check-in #1
Q4 October–December 2020
City magazine article due Oct. 15
Community survey #2
Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce informational meeting
Council/Commission check-in #2
Deliverable 3 Recommended policy and code changes 12/31/2020
Deliverable 4 Housing Strategies report 12/31/2020
Deliverable 5 Implementation Plan 12/31/2020
Q1 January–March 2021
Deliverable 6 Housing Action Plan 2/01/2021
Council/Commission final presentation
Q2 April–June 2021
Deliverable 7 Adopted Housing Action Plan 5/31/2021
FINAL 7/15/2020 2
Audiences, goals, and tactics
Audience GoalsTactics
Citystaff
Involved and invested in theSurveys
plan and its outcomes
Interviews
Extend engagement
City Council briefings
opportunities for staff
participation
CityCouncil and
Informed on project purpose,City Council briefings
Planning
goals, and timeline
Interviews
Commission
Opportunities to communicate
Surveys
with the public through
Email updates
engagement activities
Early understanding of public
perceptions
Cityresidents,
Allow stakeholders and theCity Council briefings
homeowners, and
broader community to feel
Interviews
landowners
heard, informed, involved, and
Surveys
invested
Email updates
Build trust between the City and
Project web page
the community throughout the
Media outreach
engagement process
City magazine article
“On-hold” message
Chamber event
Social media posts
Partners (e.g. County,
Involved and invested in theInterviews
community resource
plan and its outcomes
Surveys
groups, housing
Aware of opportunities to
Email updates
developers andother
provide feedback and share
Project web page
housing-related partners,
information
Chamber event
Spokane Homebuilders)
Local and regional media
Kept consistently updatedMedia outreach
throughout process
City Council briefings
Informed about the Housing
Action Plan purpose, goals, and
timeline
Know the city is listening and
wants to engage with its
community
View the HAP as an important
piece of the local planning and
development
Engagement tools
The following tools are recommended for the City to educate and engage with the
community throughout the HAP development. The format or list may change in
response to COVID-19.
FINAL 7/15/2020 3
Project materials
Display or presentation materials (e.g. PowerPoint)
Informational fact sheet in translated languages
Materials posted on the City’s web page
News releases for local newspapers at key milestones (local media covers city
news with weekly and monthly papers and a weekly podcast)
City magazine (published twice annually, mailed to all 50,000 households)
•Oct. 15, 2020 content deadline for November publication; notify Jeff of
page requirements, use ECONorthwest graphics
“On-hold” messages play when people call the City, updated quarterly
Stakeholder lists (City has developed)
Web-based tools
Project-specific public facing web page that includes all project materials,
engagement opportunity information, project contact information (email
and distribution list sign up), and is regularly updated
•City homepage banner to drive traffic to project page
•Host web page on City website platform
•Sample web pages
•City of Spokane Housing Action Plan project web page—
Project fundamentals
•City of Tacoma Affordable Housing Action Strategy project
web page— 30 second overview video
•City of Lynnwood Housing Action Plan project web page—
embedded survey link
Email updates using existing distribution lists for project updates and
engagement opportunities (Existing listservs include media list,
Comprehensive Plan update distribution list, Bicycle and pedestrian plan
distribution list, developers’ forum list, City Planner list)
Online surveys to share information and request public feedback at key
project milestones
Social media posts at key milestones and to solicit participation in online
engagement activities
•Facebook, 4,000 followers; ability to boost posts
•Twitter, 1,000 followers
•LinkedIn: 1,150 followers
•Instagram: 375 followers
Events
Stakeholder interviews
FINAL 7/15/2020 4
City Council and/or Planning Commission meetings—online and recorded
Existing city-sponsored community events—online and recorded
o Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce informational meetings
(target third or fourth quarter; Chamber does Zoom meetings in lieu of in-
person)
Roles and responsibilities
Maul Foster & Alongi’s (MFA) communications staff, led by Charla Skaggs and Kate
Elliott, will develop and assist with the implementation of this community engagement
plan and related materials and content.
City staff will be responsible for distributing notification letters and emails, posting web
content, repurposing drafted content for social media posts, translating materials,
serving as the primary point of contact for general public inquiries, and managing
event and media relations including developing and distributing news releases and
responding to media inquiries.
As the community engagement plan is implemented, responsibilities for specific tasks
will be determined through ongoing conversations, recognizing budgetary and time
limitations for city staff.
Outreach tactics and schedule
(Schedule and tactics for planning purposes only and subject to change)
Month Outreach Tactics Roles
2020
Draft and final community engagement plan MFA draft, city review
June
Stakeholder identification City lead
Develop project web page and record “on-hold”
City lead
July
message
Stakeholder interviews
MFA conduct
Email/web update to describe Housing Action Plan
MFA draft content
purpose, need, and process
Community information web page and survey #1
MFA draft content
about housing needs assessment
Media outreach regarding survey #1
Council/Commission check-in #1—PowerPoint
City lead
Presentation
City lead
MFA draft content
Email/web update sharing housing needs
August
assessment report findings and feedback
City lead
Media outreach regarding findings
September
City magazine article, content due Oct. 15 MFA draft content
October
MFA draft content
City lead
FINAL 7/15/2020 5
Month Outreach Tactics Roles
Community information webpage and survey #2
about policy and code changes
Media outreach regarding survey #2
Email/web update sharing policy and code
MFA draft content
November
changes feedback
Council/Commission check-in #2—PowerPoint
City lead
Presentation
Media outreach regarding findings
City lead
Email/web update sharing housing strategies reportMFA draft content
December
findings and implementation plan strategies
Media outreach regarding findings
City lead
2021
Email/web update sharing draft Housing ActionMFA draft content
January
Plan
Media outreach regarding draft Housing Action
City lead
Plan
Council/Commission check-in #3—PowerPointCity lead
February
Presentation
Email/web update sharing final Housing Action PlanMFA draft content
March
and feedback received
City lead
Media outreach regarding final Housing Action
Plan and feedback received
April
Email/web update announcing plan adoptionCity lead
May
Media outreach regarding final plan and adoptionCity lead
COVID-19 implications for engagement
Social distancing measures enacted during the COVID-19 outbreak have significant
implications on the outreach processes outlined in this community engagement plan.
As of mid-June, the situation is still rapidly evolving. MFA and city staff will coordinate
regularly and follow all government-recommended measures to discourage in-person
gatherings of people to help reduce the spread of the virus.
Although the duration and intensity of social distancing measures continues to
change, this plan assumes no in-person gatherings of 10 or more people through
summer 2020.
FINAL 7/15/2020 6
ATTACHMENT B
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARTS
B-1
Page
) Housing Action Plan
City
OF SURVEY RESPONSES
ity of Spokane Valley (
C
SUMMARY
at participated in the
Attachment B Demographic Charts_.docx
\\
respondents th
01_2021.03.04 Memo
\\
-ended questions asked in the survey follow Figure 8.
Documents
\\
demographics of the
summarize the
1932.01 City of Spokane Valley
\\
elected quotes from three open
figures
S
final_dir.net
\\
fs1
-
survey.
mfaspdx
he following
T(HAP) FIGURE 1: RESPONDENT AGE BY ZIP CODE \\\\
B-2
Page
Attachment B Demographic Charts_.docx
\\
01_2021.03.04 Memo
\\
Documents
\\
1932.01 City of Spokane Valley
\\
RESPONDENT INCOME BY ZIP CODE
final_dir.net
\\
fs1
-
pdx
mfas
FIGURE 2: \\\\
B-3
Page
Attachment B Demographic Charts_.docx
\\
01_2021.03.04 Memo
\\
Documents
\\
1932.01 City of Spokane Valley
\\
RESPONDENT RACE BY ZIP CODE
final_dir.net
\\
fs1
-
pdx
mfas
FIGURE 3: \\\\
B-9
cond
o build
Page
ing.”
mer head”
ntennial Trail. Need more
time home buyers assistance (i.e. silent se
-
Attachment B Demographic Charts_.docx
\\
01_2021.03.04 Memo
\\
Documents
\\
income housing. It will lower the price of other houses around and that’s not fair. And also brings alcohol, drugs and
-
1932.01 City of Spokane Valley
\\
building low
final_dir.net
\\
fs1
“My neighborhood is great but worry for friends who can’t find an affordable rental in a safe neighborhood.”“Getting too many duplexes in the neighborhood, not enough single housing.”“Need
more affordable housing options of all types.”“Old trailers and messy trashy houses.”“They are breaking up the large parcels and putting in high density housing. It has created way
more traffic than the road and neighborhoodwas designed to support. It is making my once quiet neighborhood noisy and obnoxious.”“It is a mixed neighborhood and the renters do not take
as good of care as the owners.”“Need more parks, especially with basketball courts for teens and zip lines for the kids.”“Stop homeless to that area.”“Recreation. Need more areas to
have biking/walking trails that connect to the Appleway Trail and Ceneighborhood hubs with restaurants, shops and recreation.”“I wish I know. The biggest problem currently is lack of
inventory in houses for sale and houses for rent. Apartments are popping up allover but not a lot of alternatives for those that don’t want to live in an apartment.”“Help with affordable
housing options in the form of ‘sweat equity’ type units and/or firstmortgage, etc.)”“By not regulating so tightly the ability to put ADUs on properties. We wanted to do this but getting
electrical and the “hamdrive back to the spot was cost prohibitive. A parking spot is required for the ADU if it is separate from the house…Trying to put in aplace for my elderly mother
has been awful. We have been unable to find what we need somewhere else so we are going to have tan addition.”“Keep plenty of open spaces and parks, while allowing more density in land
use.”“Help with affordable housing for some our most vulnerable citizens as well as more support for those struggling with no hous“Incentivize low income, middle income, and mixed income
housing.”
-
pdx
mfas
QUESTION: ARE THERE ANY ISSUES OR CHALLENGES THAT IMPACT QUALITY OF LIFE IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD? QUESTION: HOW CAN SPOKANE VALLEY IMPROVE HOUSING FOR OUR COMMUNITY? \\\\
B-10
blems
Page
on like the Scattered Sites project
wide opti
-
and the Spokane Valley just feels like home. There are
etc.
Attachment B Demographic Charts_.docx
\\
ls, easier shopping, less people…that, for the most part, is gone.”
homes in their yards.”
01_2021.03.04 Memo
\\
Documents
\\
1932.01 City of Spokane Valley
\\
y events anyone can participate in and Spokane Valley actually listen to the citizens instead of doing whatever they want, no
the area. Lots of green areas. A touch of city with a touch of country.”
final_dir.net
\\
fs1
“Allow single dwelling home owners to build tiny “More options for low income people to have a home instead of lumping us all together in crappy apartment complexes where proare compounded
by being around other low income people that can’t get a foot up. Need a citythat SHA is ending.”“We honestly just need more housing. There very much seems to be a lack of affordable
homes available or being built.”“Love “Large lots, family friendly, live and let live, less government.”“Low density living, quality school system and low traffic.”“It was sense of
community, less traffic, better schoo“The schools, the views, close to everything.”“I’ve lived in the Spokane Valley, City of Spokane, North Idaho, Cheney, communitmatter what the citizens
want.”
-
pdx
mfas
QUESTION: WHAT IS THE PRIMARY REASON YOU CHOSE TO LIVE IN SPOKANE VALLEY? \\\\
Ubc$21
APPENDIX E
DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY AND MULTIFAMILY
PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION ANALYSIS
DATE: February 1, 2021
TO: Maul Foster & Alongi (MFA), Matt Hoffman
FROM: ECONorthwest, Tyler Bump, Jennifer Cannon, and James Kim
SUBJECT: Evaluation of Key Housing Strategies for the Spokane Valley Housing Action Plan,
Feasibility Analysis
Introduction
ECONorthwest in partnership with MFA is supporting the development of a Housing Action
Plan (HAP) for the City of Spokane Valley to evaluate current and future housing needs and
identify strategies to meet those needs. The HAP is largely made possible due to a Washington
State Department of Commerce Housing Bill 1923 Grant. The overarching aims for the HAP are
to include strategies to increase the supply of housing, and variety of housing types and actions
to increase the supply of housing affordable to all income levels. The approach for developing a
HAP began with an assessment of housing needs, public involvement, and analysis of the
effectiveness of existing policies and potential updates to key regulations. All of this information
collectively informs the strategic actions to be including in the HAP.
A few of the housing strategies include modifications to existing development code and
expansion of multifamily tax exemptions (MFTE) to encourage more housing variety and housing
supply. ECONorthwest analyzed development feasibility of certain code modifications and the
potential addition of MFTE program incentives to evaluate their effectiveness in improving the
likelihood of development of townhomes and multifamily apartments. A development feasibility
analysis tests the impact that various changes to development standards and incentive programs
have on market-realistic development examples called prototypes.
In addition, ECONorthwest provided Housing Action Plan content useful for describing the
Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) Program policy updates to consider. This memo provides
the following Housing Action Plan sections:
1.Development Feasibility Analysis Findings
2.MFTE Program Overview
3.Development Feasibility Assumptions
Section 1: Development Feasibility Analysis
This section describes the findings from evaluating a set of key planning tools, specifically the
multifamily property tax exemption (MFTE) and regulatory changes including modifications to
the allowed density in certain zones and changes to other development standards. These
planning tools were selected due to their potential to boost housing production, especially
housing priced for low- to middle-income households.
The multifamily tax exemption allows a local jurisdiction to incent diverse housing
options in urban centers lacking in housing choices or workforce housing units.
Essentially this program supports increased housing availability, possibly including
ECONorthwest | Portland | Seattle | Los Angeles | Eugene | Boise | econw.com 1
affordable units, largely in mixed income developments conveniently located in urban
centers. Washington State Chapter 84.14 RCW outlines the existing requirements for
implementing a multifamily tax exemption (MFTE). This program exempts eligible new
construction or rehabilitated housing from paying property taxes for either an 8-year or
12-year period of time. Only multiple-unit projects with four or more rental units are
eligible for either the 8- or 12-year exemption, and only property owners who commit to
renting or selling at least 20% of these units to low- and moderate-income households –
earning less than 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) – are eligible for the 12-year
exemption. The City of Spokane Valley currently does not have a MFTE program
established. Additional detail on the MFTE program is provided in Section 2.
The density of residential buildings is partly determined by the maximum density
allowances that the municipal code sets for each zone. Density allowances differ by zone
and sometimes are specific to the type of residential building. Residential density is
important for housing development because it determines the number of units that can
be built on a parcel. Minimum lot sizes can also influence residential development since
it can prevent development on lots below a certain size.
The number and size of housing units that can be built on a parcel is also determined by
requirements for non-residential uses or areas to be set-aside and not developed. Open
space requirements (as well as setbacks and minimum landscape requirements) limit the
residential building size on a parcel. The size of the building can also be limited by
maximum lot coverage, which determines the largest share of a parcel that a building can
be built on.
Residential density can increase both horizontally and vertically and the maximum
building height determines how high the building can be built, thus can restrict the height
of residential development.
PURPOSE OF THIS ASSESSMENT
The purpose of this analysis is to examine a set of key program changes and policy levers that
can help "tip" project feasibility for the MFTE program and regulatory changes in the City of
Spokane Valley. The analysis focused on the following:
R-4 zone (Townhomes):
Increasing the residential density in the R-4 zone from 10 dwelling units per acre (du/ac)
to 15 du/ac.
Increasing residential density in the R-4 zone to 22 du/ac.
Increasing the maximum lot coverage from 60% to 80% of the parcel for townhomes.
Decreasing the minimum lot size for townhomes from 4,300 square feet to 2,000 square
feet in the R-4 zone.
Multi-Family Residential (MFR) zone (apartments):
ECONorthwest 2
Increasing the residential density in Multi-Family Residential (MFR) zone from 22 du/ac
to 40 du/ac.
Elimination of Open Space Requirements for Multifamily Apartments within ¼ mile of
City Parks.
Increasing the maximum lot coverage from 60% to 100% for multifamily apartments.
Increasing the maximum building height from 50 feet to 65 feet in the MFR zone.
MFTE:
Test out the addition of a MFTE program offering a 12-year tax exemption that would
require at least 20% of the units be set aside for households earning 80% of the AMI or
1
less. In Spokane County, the AMI for a 4-person household is $77,400 in 2020.
MFTE program without any increase in residential density in MFR zone.
MFTE program with an increase in residential density to 40 du/ac in MFR zone.
Summary of Development Feasibility Findings
Below is a thematic overview of the findings from the development feasibility assessment. For
more detail on the analysis, assumptions, and dollar values of the assessment results, please refer
to the next section.
Based on existing development standards and land prices in Spokane Valley, townhomes
have limited feasibility in R-4 zone and 3-story garden-style apartments are not feasible
in MFR zone given current land prices. The value of new development is limited by
development standards that limit the scale of development that is possible on a parcel.
Increasing density allowances is the best way to encourage development of townhomes
and apartments in Spokane Valley.
For garden-style apartments, the 12-year MFTE also makes projects more feasible, but it
is not as impactful as increasing density allowances to 40 du/ac.
Decreasing open space requirements, increasing maximum lot coverage, or increasing
maximum building height is unlikely to have any meaningful effect on housing
development in the near future.
Development Feasibility Assessment
Financial pro forma models are used to estimate the impact on development feasibility resulting
from potential changes to development standards and incentive programs. More specifically, this
analysis evaluates the residual land value (RLV) to understand development feasibility and the
value that a change to development standards or tax abatements might provide. RLV is an
estimate of what a developer would be willing to pay for land given the property’s income from
leases or sales, the cost of construction, and the investment returns needed to attract capital for
1
Based on 2020 income limits in Spokane County. https://www.spokanehousing.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/07/Spokane_Utilities_Payment_Standards_2020_GD_HAP.pdf.
ECONorthwest 3
the project. (These assumptions can be found in Appendix.) Figure 1 demonstrates in green the
development value that is remaining after development costs and is available for acquiring land.
Figure 1. Illustration of Residual Land Value, or Land Budget
Source: ECONorthwest
While there are other quantitative methods for calculating regulatory and incentive changes, such
as an internal rate of return (IRR) threshold approach, all of the potential methods share
drawbacks regarding the quality of inputs and sensitivity to those inputs. An advantage of the
RLV approach is that it does not rely on land prices as an input. Rather, observed land prices can
be compared with the model outputs to help calibrate the model and ensure it reflects reality.
Because RLV is essentially a land budget, higher values indicate better development feasibility.
To understand the impact the various policies, we created an analysis model that employs the
same financial considerations a real estate developer would use to determine if a proposed
development is financially feasible. These financial calculations are referred to as a pro forma
model. A pro forma considers the size of the building allowed by zoning and the revenue that
building can deliver (from rents and sales prices) relative to the costs of constructing and
operating the building. We ran the pro forma model on example developments (or prototypes)
that are reflective of the types and scales of development in the Spokane Valley area.
Three prototypes are evaluated in this feasibility analysis.
1. 3-story townhomes on a 0.3-acre lot. Townhomes are 2-bedroom or 3-bedroom units with
about 1,400 square feet (sf) to 1,700 sf of net floor area, sharing walls with neighboring
units, a one-car garage on the ground floor, and a driveway that can function as an
additional parking stall. They are assumed to sell at about $421,000 per unit on average.
2. 3-story townhomes on a 1.0-acre lot. These townhomes are the same as above, but they
are laid out on two rows and share a private alleyway. They are assumed to sell at about
$429,000 per unit on average.
ECONorthwest 4
3. 3-story, garden-style apartments on a 2.5-acre lot. Apartments have a mix of various sizes
ranging from 600 sf for a studio unit to 1,300 sf for a 3-bedroom unit. Residents and their
guests have access to surface parking and a shared lobby or common space area. The
average rent is assumed to be $1,400 per month.
Increase in Allowed Residential Density
The current zoning standards for R-4 zone allows up to 10 du/ac. The assessment of development
feasibility based on certain assumptions (in Appendix) results in RLV of $9.1 per square foot (psf)
for townhomes on 0.3-acre lots and $6.8 psf for townhomes on 1.0-acre lots. In comparison, the
2
Therefore, current zoning
average value of land in the R-4 zone is between $8.0 psf and $12.0 psf.
standards would allow some townhomes to be built in the R-4 zone, but they would not allow
most townhomes to be built.
Increasing the allowed density to 15 du/ac would allow an additional unit to be built on 0.3-acre
lots and improve development feasibility by $5.2 psf. On 1.0-acre lots, the same density increase
would allow 5 more units to be built and improve development feasibility by $9.1 psf. The
increases in RLV are likely to make most townhome projects feasible since they raise the RLV
above typical land prices ($8 psf to $12 psf). Moreover, increasing the allowed density to 22 du/ac
would improve development feasibility to $24.8 psf for townhomes on 0.3-acre lots and to $28.6
psf for townhomes on 1.0-acre lots.
The current zoning standards for MFR zone allows up to 22 du/ac, which results in RLV of $19.8
for a 3-story, garden-style apartment. This value is slightly below the typical land prices in the
3
Therefore, private developers are unlikely
MFR zone, which ranges between $20 psf and $24 psf.
to build 3-story apartments under the current zoning standards without a discount in the land
price.
To encourage the development of apartments in MFR zone, the City of Spokane Valley could
increase the allowed density. For example, increasing the density allowance to 40 du/ac would
raise the RLV of apartments to $42.9, which is significantly higher than the typical land prices. A
policy lever that results in such a large increase in RLV may be warranted since some lands in the
MFR can cost $30 psf. Increasing density allowance is a powerful tool to enable apartment
development.
2
Land value is based on assessor’s data of properties in R-4 zone that were sold in 2019 and 2020. The average land
price was about $10 psf.
3
Land value is based on assessor’s data of properties in MFR zone that were sold in 2019 and 2020. The average land
price was about $22 psf.
ECONorthwest 5
Figure 2. Feasibility Impact of Increasing Residential Density
Source: ECONorthwest
Note: Grey bars indicate feasibility under current development standards. Navy bars indicate feasibility under modified
development standards. Green bars indicate the range of typical land prices.
12-Year MFTE Program
Another policy tool to enhance development feasibility is the Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE)
program. This statewide program grants an exemption from state property tax for eligible
multifamily properties with more than 4 residential units. Cities can adopt an 8-year program
that allows tax exemptions for eight years. Cities can also adopt a 12-year program that allows
tax exemptions for twelve years for properties that designate at least 20% of their units to be
income-restricted. Cities in Washington typically set the income limit at 80% of the AMI for rental
units. From developers’ perspective the
Figure3. Feasibility Impact of 12-Year MFTE Program
12-year MFTE program temporarily
with and without an Increase Residential Density
reduces property taxes while
Source: ECONorthwest
temporarily reducing rental income. On
net, the benefit of the reduced property
taxes outweighs the cost of lower rental
income.
The 12-year MFTE program improves
the RLV of 3-story, garden-style
apartments from $19.8 psf to $26.5 psf,
which is slightly higher than the
typical range for land prices.
Combining the 12-year MFTE program
with an increase in density allowance
(from 22 du/ac to 40 du/ac) would
improve the RLV to $55.2 psf, well
above the typical range for land prices.
ECONorthwest 6
Elimination of Open Space Requirements for Multifamily Apartments within ¼ mile of
City Parks
Under certain circumstances, open space requirements can be detrimental to development
feasibility. Because open space takes up a portion of the lot’s surface, it limits the number and
size of units that can be built horizontally. It also competes for space with surface parking area.
Even for multistory buildings that can accommodate more units vertically, open space
requirements can limit development density once the buildings reach a certain height.
However, all of the apartment prototypes analyzed under the current development standards or
modified development standards described above have low enough maximum residential
density so that open space requirements do not impact viability of developing the prototypes.
Even with a density allowance of 40 du/ac, 3-story apartments are not expected to take up more
than a third of the lot, leaving plenty of space for driveways, walkways, surface parking,
landscaping, and open space.
Eliminating or reducing the open space requirement would make very modest improvements in
development feasibility. Any reductions in open space would likely be replaced with landscaping
rather than more units because the limits on residential density do not allow more units to be
built. The improvement in development feasibility can be approximated by the difference in the
cost of building an open space area and the cost of landscaping.
Other Modifications
There are other suggestions for modifying the development standards that have not been
analyzed with a pro forma model because they have no impact on development feasibility.
First, increasing the maximum lot coverage does not affect development feasibility because
residential density allowances in the current development standards and the modified
development standards we are testing do not allow the lot coverage of developments to reach
more than 40 percent. Although increasing the maximum lot coverage will be important when
residential densities are higher, it is not likely to yield meaningful results in the near future.
Similarly, a higher maximum lot coverage will be important if developers want to build
apartments with structured parking, but such developments usually require density allowance
of at least 60 du/ac.
Second, increasing the maximum building height from 50 feet to 65 feet for multifamily
apartments is relevant for developers of apartment buildings taller than 4 stories. The maximum
density allowances in the current development standards can be reached with a 3-story or 4-story
building, thus the increase in maximum height is not tested in the feasibility assessment.
Third, decreasing the minimum lot size for townhomes from 4,300 square feet to 2,000 square feet
is not directly tested because minimum lot size requirements are, in some ways, equivalent to
maximum density requirements. A minimum lot size of 4,300 square feet implies 10.1 du/ac (=
43,560 square feet per acre / 4,300 square feet per unit) and a minimum lot size of 2,000 square
feet implies 21.8 du/ac (= 43,560 square feet per acre / 2,000 square feet per unit). These density
ECONorthwest 7
limits are already tested in the feasibility assessment, though the 21.8 du/ac limit is tested as 22.0
du/ac.
Minimum lot sizes can also be important for properties developed on small lots. However,
because the smallest lot size tested in the feasibility assessment is 13,068 square feet (= 43,560
square feet per acre x 0.3), the reduction in minimum lot size is not relevant for the analysis.
Summary of Feasibility Assessmentby Prototype
Townhomes are barely feasible or not feasible under the current development standards. Their
RLVs are $9.1 psf on 0.3-acre lots and $6.8 psf on 1.0-acre lots. In comparison, the typical land
price ranges between $8 psf and $10 psf. However, increasing the density allowances would make
townhome projects feasible.
For multifamily apartments, the 12-year MFTE program is not as effective as it would be to
increase density allowances to 40 du/ac. The 12-year MFTE program raises RLV by $6.7 psf,
whereas increasing the density allowance from 22 du/ac to 40 du/ac increases the RLV by $23.1
psf. Notably, the combined effect of the 12-year MFTE program and higher residential density is
greater than the sum of the two policy changes enacted independently. This is because the net
benefit of the 12-year MFTE program is multiplied by the increased number of units that becomes
possible with greater density allowances.
Figure 4. Feasibility Impact of Various Policy Changes for All Three Prototypes
Source: ECONorthwest
ECONorthwest 8
Section 2. MFTE Program Overview
What is a Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) Program?
The MFTE program enables a jurisdiction to incentivize mixed-income housing development and
diverse housing options in urban areas lacking housing choices. Washington cities with a
population of 15,000 can adopt a MFTE program to stimulate new multifamily affordable housing
development. This program exempts eligible new construction or rehabilitated housing from
paying property taxes for either an 8-year or 12-year period of time. Developers seeking to take
advantage of this program must be within one of the city’s designated residential target areas
which are often located in urban center or urban growth areas. If a jurisdiction offers the 12-year
tax exemption, only property owners who commit to renting or selling at least 20% of these units
to low- and moderate-income households are eligible per state law. In contrast, there is no
4
housing affordability requirement for the 8-year tax exemption option.
Cities around Washington are using the MFTE program differently. For example, many cities in
the southern portion of King County focus on using the 8-year program option to encourage
redevelopment in target areas without housing affordability requirements since the initial goal
was to redevelop older properties with newer, higher quality housing. Some cities are using the
program to promote housing rehabilitation projects (such as the cities of Tacoma and Port
Orchard). For housing rehabilitation projects, only the value of eligible housing improvements is
exempted from property taxes. If a jurisdiction has aging multifamily developments or
underutilized buildings suited to residential uses, they should consider whether rehabilitated
units should be included in the MFTE program. Some jurisdictions restrict program use to
multifamily projects with over 10 units and some other jurisdictions have made multiple-unit
projects with 4 or more units (such as quad homes or townhomes) eligible for tax exemptions
(City of Seattle). The MFTE program is increasingly being used in Washington state with an
estimated 26 cities and one county establishing this program since 2007 and around 424
developments receiving tax exemptions (JLARC, 2019).
Tax abatements positively impact the feasibility of projects where market-rate projects are feasible
and can help cross-subsidize the affordable units. Cities considering a MFTE program should
weigh the temporary loss of tax revenue against the potential attraction of new investment in
target areas. State law does not prohibit MFTE from being paired with other incentives. Bonus
units, incentives such as impact fee waivers, and the integration of a more flexible development
agreement approach including performance requirements and a menu of corresponding
incentives could help offset the costs incurred from affordable housing unit requirements and
could be considered as a way to promote program usage. If the program requirements are not
sufficiently mitigated by incentives, the profit required by the developer will not be actualized.
The level of incentive necessary will vary greatly within a region and even vary within
jurisdictions themselves depending on “submarket” conditions present at a site. Therefore, it’s
4
Chapter 84.14 RCW provides MFTE guidance for Washington State.
ECONorthwest 9
important to thoroughly evaluate—and constantly refine—the incentives to make sure that they
are priced according to the market, or they will not produce housing.
Program Example: City of Renton MFTE
Renton, WA is similar in population size and growth rate to Spokane Valley. The City of Renton allows applications for
8-year or 12-year exemptions. If applying for the 12-year exemption, then 20% of rentable units must be for households
at or below 80% AMI. If applying for ownership project, then 20% of units must be reserved for households at or below
5
120% AMI. Depending on the zone, the City requires a minimum of 10 or 30 housing units to be built to qualify for the
exemption. Renton passed their MFTE program in 2007. As of 2019, the program has built 1,535 units including 92
affordable units. Renton’s program has been successful in producing more market-rate units.
Program Example: City of Spokane MFTE
The City allows applications for 8-year or 12-year exemptions. If applying for the 12-year exemption, then they must
reserve 20% of the housing units to renters with an income of no more than 115% AMI for moderate-income households
6
and below 80% AMI for low-income households.If developing a mixed-use project, then 50% or more of the project
must include residential uses. In 2019, the City updated its MFTE boundary to include Center and Corridor Zones,
Residential Zones, and Commercial Zones (See Figure 5). MFTE projects are exempt from the minimum off-street
parking if within the Center and Corridor Zones. To be considered, developers must apply for the program before
construction. The City of Spokane passed their MFTE program in 2007. In the program’s first four years, Spokane built
7
453 units. As of 2019, the program has built 1,751 units including 509 affordable units.
FIGURE 5. City of Spokane MFTE Boundary
5
https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Renton/html/Renton04/Renton0401/Renton0401220.html
6
https://my.spokanecity.org/economicdevelopment/incentives/multi-family-tax-exemption/
7
https://static.spokanecity.org/documents/projects/multi-family-tax-exemption-2017-incentive-evaluation/2012-mfte-
data-and-code-guide.pdf
ECONorthwest 10
Key Program Variations:
Housing rehabilitation versus new construction or both.
Restricting program to only multifamily projects with over ten housing units or
loosening up this restriction to allow “missing middle” housing with over four units
(must be at least four units, per state law).
Pair with other incentives such as impact fee waivers.
A few programs (cities of Bellevue and Seattle) are providing a greater incentive for
those providing family-sized units with over two bedrooms since program applicants
tend to construct or rehabilitate one-bedroom or studio housing units rather than
provide housing with over two bedrooms (JLARC estimates that approximately 75% of
the units created between 2007-2018 are studios or one bedroom).
MFTE Residential Targeted Areas can vary to include urban centers, mixed-use areas,
transit-oriented development areas, or a mixture of these (RCW 84.14.040).
Time period of exemption: 8 year, 12 year, or both.
Depth of housing unit affordability (must be below 80%) and length of affordability (8
years, 12 years, or life of project).
Policy Considerations:
MFTE is a property tax subsidy to underwrite the voluntary participation to set aside
housing units, income-restricted. The capitalized value of the subsidy supports both the
affordable housing provision and developer participation/risk.
More stringent restrictions could hurt participation in the program.
Making the program as user-friendly as possible, can broaden program usage. A
housing liaison at the City or affordable housing nonprofit partner can help facilitate
program usage.
Benefits:
Tax abatements positively impact the feasibility of projects where market-rate projects
are feasible.
Project can help cross-subsidize affordable units.
Can help broaden housing choices in the City.
Drawbacks:
Requires regular reporting to the state which helps track program usage.
City must weigh the temporary loss of tax revenue against the potential attraction of
new investment in targeted areas.
ECONorthwest 11
Reduces general fund revenues for all overlapping taxing districts, which could make it
harder to promote the tool to partner jurisdictions that do not perceive the same project
benefits.
May provide insufficient incentive to lead to affordability unless paired with other tools.
ECONorthwest 12
Section 3: Development Feasibility Assumptions
ECONorthwest 13
ECONorthwest 14
ECONorthwest 15
ECONorthwest 16
ECONorthwest 17
UBC$22
APPENDIX F
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDING SOURCES
DATE: February 5, 2021
TO: Maul Foster and Alongi, Inc.
FROM: ECONorthwest
SUBJECT: State, Local and Federal Affordable Housing Funding Sources for the Spokane Valley
Housing Action Plan
Washington State, Local and Federal Affordable
Housing Funding Sources
This section describes the main state, local, and federal affordable housing funding sources
available to developers looking to construct affordable housing properties in the City of Spokane
Valley. This section focuses solely on funding sources, not indirect financing sources that provide
financial benefits to affordable housing projects via reduced costs. Many of the funding sources
could be allocated by the federal government but are administered by state and local housing
finance agencies.
Washington State Funding Sources
As shown below, the Washington State Housing Finance Commission offers several funding
programs to build multifamily affordable housing.
The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program is the largest source of funding
established for affordable housing and is an indirect subsidy (in the form of a reduced
federal income tax liability) for private companies to invest in affordable housing. This
program is administered by state and local housing finance agencies in accordance with
U.S. Treasury Department stipulations. Generally, LIHTC recipients receive the credit
over one decade and in exchange, the housing units must be kept affordable for at least
three decades (states can stipulate a longer period). In Washington State, the Housing and
Finance Commission provides two types of LIHTC programs: the 9% tax credit and the
4% bond tax credit program.
o The 9% tax credit program is more valuable, but limited, and is awarded
1
competitively through annual funding applications. A few drawbacks are the
competitive nature and the complex application process (can take several months)
and reporting requirements. Large renovation projects tend to use the 9% option
while smaller preservation and acquisition-rehab projects tend to take advantage
of the 4% option.
o The 4% bond tax credit program is less valuable for project financing, but the
program is not always competitive. This option is available if more than half the
project is financed with tax-exempt Multifamily Bonds. Any project that is able to
make the funding program work can access the tax credits up to a certain bond
1
Source: Washington State Housing and Finance Commission, https://www.wshfc.org/mhcf/9percent/index.htm.
ECONorthwest | Portland | Seattle | Los Angeles | Eugene | Boise | econw.com 1
cap across the state. These programs typically fund housing units that are
affordable to households earning below 60% of AMI. Although the 4% bond tax
credit program tends to not be competitive, there could be competition for the
2
bonds during certain years when demand exceeds availability
The 80/20 Private Activity Bond program can fund construction and development costs
for eligible affordable housing projects (e.g., multifamily rental housing, limited equity
cooperative, assisted living, single room occupancy housing). The interest on the funding
is tax exempt (also known as private activity bonds), thereby reducing total development
costs and increasing project feasibility. This program typically funds housing units that
are affordable to households earning below 60% of AMI. In return for this incentive, the
3
developer must set aside a certain percentage of units for low-income residents.
Non-Profit Housing Bonds can assist 501(c)(3) nonprofits in financing numerous housing
developments. These funds are more flexible than other types of financing programs.
Nonprofit bonds cannot be combined with the LIHTC program incentives, but they can
be used to finance a broader range of eligible activities and facilities (such as emergency
4
shelters for the homeless).
The Land Acquisition Program assists qualified nonprofits and developers with
purchasing land for affordable housing development (rental or homeownership). This
loan helps developers buy land and then gives them the necessary time to build financing
for building the housing.
The Washington State Department of Commerce offers three additional funding programs for
developing affordable housing.
The Washington State Housing Trust Fund (HTF) provides loans and grants to
affordable housing projects through annual competitive applications. This program
typically funds housing units that are affordable to households earning below 80% of
AMI. Recently at the end of 2020, the DOC announced that $85.3M of funding will be
granted/loaned from the state’s HTF, with an additional $11.7M provided through
HUD’s HOME and National HTF programs (both federal but managed by the DOC).
This funding amount sets a new annual record of investment by the state HTF. This
funding will be allocated to 30 projects and will help provide an estimated 1,404
multifamily rental units/beds, 121 homes for first-time homebuyers, 86 units of modular
housing, and 74 units in cottage-style communities. The DOC will post a call for
2
Although the 4% bond tax credit program tends to not be competitive, there could be competition for the bonds
during certain years when demand exceeds availability. Sources: Washington State Housing and Finance
Commission, https://www.wshfc.org/mhcf/4percent/index.htm and Local Housing Solutions:
https://www.localhousingsolutions.org/fund/federal-funding-for-affordable-housing/.
3
Source: Washington State Housing and Finance Commission,
https://www.wshfc.org/mhcf/BondsOnly8020/index.htm.
4
Source: Washington State Housing and Finance Commission, https://www.wshfc.org/mhcf/nph/index.htm.
ECONorthwest 2
applications for the 2021-23 biennial funds soon in 2021 at:
https://www.commerce.wa.gov/building-infrastructure/housing/housing-trust-
fund/applying-to-the-housing-trust-fund/.
The Housing Preservation Program provides funding for affordable housing
rehabilitation, preservation, and capital improvement needs. It is only available for
5
projects that have previously received Housing Trust Funds.
The HOME Program is a federal block grant program funded through the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) used to preserve and build
rental housing affordable to low-income households. The Washington State Department
of Commerce runs the HOME Rental Development program for Washington State HOME
Investment Partnerships Program (HOME). This program offers funding for the
preservation and development of affordable rental housing to non-profit organizations,
public housing authorities, and local and tribal governments. HOME Funds typically
build units that are affordable to households earning below 50% of AMI. Action plans are
developed every spring to describe how the state will allocate funds for the next year.
Participating jurisdictions must set aside at least 15% of their HOME funds for housing
that is developed, sponsored, or owned by Community Housing Development
6
Organizations.
Local Funding Sources
1)A property tax levy (RCW 84.52.105) – allows jurisdictions to place an additional tax up to
$0.50 per thousand dollars assessed for up to ten years. Funds must go toward financing
affordable housing for households earning below 50% MFI.
2)A sales tax levy (RCW 82.14.530) – allows jurisdictions to place a sales tax up to 0.1 percent.
At least 60 percent of funds must go toward constructing affordable housing,
mental/behavioral health-related facilities, or funding the operations and maintenance costs
of affordable housing and facilities where housing-related programs are provided. At least
40 percent of funds must go toward mental / behavioral health treatment programs and
services or housing-related services.
3)A real estate excise tax (REET) (RCW 82.46.035) – allows a portion of city REET funds to be
used for affordable housing projects and the planning, acquisition, rehabilitation, repair,
5
Source: Washington State Department of Commerce Housing Preservation Program,
https://www.commerce.wa.gov/building-infrastructure/housing/housing-preservation-program/
6
Through the federal HOME program, the King County Housing and Community Development Department
administers a Housing Finance Program (HFP) to provide capital funds for acquisition, rehabilitation, site
improvements, new construction, and other costs related to housing development. Projects must apply for program
benefits and the process is competitive. The HFP includes funds from King County's local Housing Opportunity
Fund. Sources: Washington State Department of Commerce HOME Rental Development Program,
https://www.commerce.wa.gov/building-infrastructure/housing/housing-trust-fund/home-program/ and ARCH,
https://www.archhousing.org/developers/other-funding-options.html.
ECONorthwest 3
replacement, construction, or improvement of facilities for people experiencing
homelessness. These projects must be listed in city’s the capital facilities plan.
Federal Government Funding Sources
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) offers several different
programs for developing affordable housing. Select programs are described below.
Since 1974, HUD has provided Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) for the
improvement of the economic, social and physical environment and quality of life for low-
and moderate-income residents. Generally, these grants can address a wide range of
community development needs including infrastructure improvements, housing rehab
loans and grants as well as other benefits targeted to low- and moderate-income persons.
A competitive process is typically used to allocate grants for individual projects and the
amount of federal funding for CDBG has diminished over the past few years.
o The local CDBG Program is administered by Spokane County’s Community
Services, Housing, and Community Development Department since the City of
Spokane Valley is part of the Spokane County CDBG Consortium (via an interlocal
7
The City of Spokane Valley is currently allocated approximately 20
agreement).
percent of the consortium’s total CDBG award which ranges between $270,000 to
$358,000. Eligibility is based on consistency with adopted priorities in the
consolidated plan and whether the proposal targets broader community-wide
benefits and low- and moderate-incomes (as determined by census tract) and
residential uses.
The HUD Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program is one mechanism available for CDBG
(block grant) recipients to increase the capacity to assist with economic development,
housing, public financing, and infrastructure projects by enabling a community to borrow
up to five times its annual CDBG allocation. Communities can use these loans to either
finance projects or to start loan funds to finance multiple projects over several years. The
program has flexible repayment terms and is often layered with other sources of financing
8
such as LIHTC.
HUD also provides two Section 8 funding programs that assist with rent payment. The
Section 8 funding programs do not provide financial support to build affordable housing;
rather, they provide support for households earning up to 80% of the AMI by paying the
rent balance above 30% of the household income. HUD has a tenant-based Section 8 rental
housing assistance offered primarily through the Housing Choice Voucher program.
7
Source: Spokane County https://www.spokanecounty.org/1240/CDBG
8
HUD Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program: https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/comm_planning/section108
ECONorthwest 4
o This voucher program is administered by the Spokane Housing Authority (SHA).
Voucher holders gain a rental subsidy that can be used at any eligible rental
housing. Consequently, this incentive moves with the eligible household rather
than being tied to an affordable housing development. The other Section 8
program is a project-based voucher program providing a subsidy to specific
housing units providing consistent affordability. SHA requires households to have
50% AMI or less and reserves 75% of units for incomes at or below 30% AMI. Since
the assistance is connected to the housing unit, this program can help create or
preserve affordable housing in high-cost, gentrifying areas.
HUD 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly: This program provides interest-free capital
advances to private, nonprofit sponsors to finance housing development for low-income
seniors. The capital advance does not have to be repaid as long as the project serves low-
income seniors. The nonprofit must provide a minimum capital investment equal to 0.5
percent of the HUD-approved capital advance, up to a maximum of $25,000. Occupancy
in Section 202 housing is open to any very low-income household comprised of at least
9
one person who is at least 62 years old at the time of initial occupancy.
HUD Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities: This program
provides funding to build and subsidize rental housing for eligible persons with
disabilities, in household income levels ranging from very low (50% AMI) and extremely
low (under 30% AMI). At least one adult member in the household must have a disability
such as a physical or developmental disability or chronic mental illness. A general aim of
this program is help persons with disabilities live independently as much as possible. The
program provides interest-free capital advances and operation subsidies to nonprofit
developers. In addition, assistance is provided to state housing agencies in a variety of
10
ways such as Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits.
Another HUD program supporting affordable housing rehabilitation is the Choice
Neighborhoods grant program. This program is the successor to the HOPE VI program.
This program funds the redevelopment, rehabilitation, and new construction associated
with severely-distressed public housing and privately-owned HUD-assisted properties.
A neighborhood revitalization plan (referred to as a Transformation Plan) describing the
project goals and how it will address community problems and increase opportunities for
11
the residents and the surrounding neighborhood is required.
9
Source: HUD, https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/housing/mfh/progdesc/eld202
10
Source: HUD, https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/housing/mfh/progdesc/disab811.
11
Source: Local Housing Solutions, https://www.localhousingsolutions.org/fund/federal-funding-for-affordable-
housing/.
ECONorthwest 5
City of Spokane Valley Rent-Restricted Low-Income Housing Inventory Analysis
City of Spokane Valley Rent-Restricted Affordable Housing Inventory Data Sources: Washington State Housing and Finance
Commission (WSHFC), 2020, US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Spokane Housing Authority (SHA),
and Community Frameworks (CF).
Data Searches (mid 2020): HUD, USDA Rural Development Program (there were no properties in Spokane Valley), SHA,
City of Spokane Valley, and PolicyMap.
Notes: 0BR: is a studio. SRO: Single Room Occupancy. BR: Bedroom.
We de-duplicated properties that appeared in multiple databases by looking at property names, total units, and addresses.
We did not gather information on affordable homeownership properties, nor information on any housing vouchers. This
information does not include homeless shelters or transitional housing that is not income or rent restricted. Lastly, we
assume the WSHFC properties are all currently rent restricted, even if their LIHTC Year-15 has passed. While we cannot
guarantee that the data is fully complete, it likely captures a robust share of the total rent-restricted affordable housing
across Spokane Valley.
ECONorthwest 6
Federal Government Designated Geographic Areas for Affordable Housing Support
Developing a regulated affordable housing property can be a complex and difficult process.
Different funding sources may have different priorities, and the costs of land and development
can be prohibitive. To help alleviate some of these difficulties, the federal government has
designated certain geographic areas to receive higher priority or more funding for regulated
affordable housing development. These include Qualified Census Tracts, Difficult to Develop
Areas, and Opportunity Zones, each described below.
Qualified Census Tracts
HUD defines a Qualified Census Tract (QCT) as a Census Tract with “50 percent of households
with incomes below 60 percent of the Area Median Gross Income (AMGI)” or one where the
12
Affordable housing developments in QCTs that apply for
poverty rate exceeds 25 percent.
LIHTC funding receive a boost in the amount of tax credits they can receive. The City of Spokane
Valley has a few QCT (see image below).
12
HUD. 2020. “Qualified Census Tracts and Difficult Development Areas.” www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/qct.html
ECONorthwest 7
Difficult Development Areas
HUD defines a Difficult Development Areas (DDA) as “areas with high land, construction and
utility costs relative to the area median income” and uses HUD Fair Market Rents, income limits,
2010 census, and 5-year American Community Survey (ACS) data as determinants. DDA
properties using the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program can receive a 30 percent
basis boost in qualified costs, increasing tax credits and resulting in greater investment equity in
a project. The City of Spokane Valley does not include any DDAs.
Opportunity Zones
In addition, the 2017 federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act created the Opportunity Zone program which
is designed to incentivize investment in low-income communities by providing tax benefits.
13
While there are no
Opportunity Zones are Census Tracts where the poverty rate exceeds 20%.
specific funding boosts for affordable housing projects developed in Opportunity Zones, the tax
incentives make other types of multifamily development more feasible. The City of Spokane
Valley does not have any Opportunity Zones.
13
Washington State Department of Commerce. 2020. “Opportunity Zones-An Incentive to Invest in Lower-Income Areas.”
https://www.commerce.wa.gov/growing-the-economy/opportunity-zones/
ECONorthwest 8
Affordable Housing Development Information
This section describes the affordable housing development and finance process and how it differs
from market rate development.
Typical Affordable Housing Development Process
The development of new, multifamily regulated affordable housing is a long and complex
process. It is subject to many of the same development conditions as market-rate development,
with added complexity due to lower rents requiring additional, lower-cost funding. The
development process begins in predevelopment (design and feasibility, land entitlements, and
funding applications) then enters construction, before beginning operations. The following are
typical development phases for regulated affordable housing projects.
Design and Feasibility
Affordable housing developers start with an understanding of the need for less expensive
housing in an area.
How many units are needed at what rent level?
What income levels have the biggest gaps in housing supply?
What populations are struggling with housing costs the most?
Just like market rate developers, affordable housing developers test the financial feasibility of
what they hope to build against the local political and economic conditions. They must estimate
what it will cost to build, what affordability levels the region needs, and the amount of funding
available to build the project. If the project is not financially or politically feasible (i.e., cannot find
adequate funding sources or does not meet a neighborhood’s goals), building the housing will be
immensely challenging. Key challenges that are considered: cost of land, development allowed
on the land (zoning), costs of construction, rents or prices, costs of operations (for multifamily),
or local opposition to the project.
How does affordable housing differ?
Both affordable housing development and market-rate development need to go through design
and feasibility. Affordable housing development differs from market-rate development in this
stage due to limited funding. With the goal of providing below-market rents, the financing
structure (often called the “capital stack”) of an affordable housing development needs to fill a
gap (often called a “funding gap”) between what it costs to build the property and what the
property’s operations can support. A market rate development will typically have investor equity
and one or two types of debt financing, but an affordable housing development may also need to
secure public funding, grants, operating subsidies, and low-cost or forgivable debt on top of
competitive investor equity sources (see exhibit below). Some affordable housing developers
need to secure predevelopment loans or grants as they work out the logistics of project feasibility.
ECONorthwest 9
Sometimes, affordable housing developments are given free or reduced cost land, which aids
feasibility and reduces the amount of debt needed.
Typical Capital Stacks in a Market Rate and a 9% LIHTC Affordable Housing Development
Source: ECONorthwest
Land Use Entitlements
This is the process of getting control of the site (buying land or assembling parcels) and getting
the legal authority to develop (zoning and permitting, design review, neighborhood opposition,
etc.). This can take months or years depending on the type of project, the required level of public
review, the time it takes to obtain permits, the amount of neighborhood opposition, and many
other factors. Developers typically take out pre-development loans to cover these costs, meaning
that delays incur “carrying costs” (the interest that accrues on the loan each month of the process).
This loan may be wrapped into or repaid by the construction loan.
How does affordable housing differ?
Both affordable housing developments and market-rate developments need to secure land use
entitlements. One major way that affordable housing development differs from market-rate
development in this stage, is due to neighborhood opposition. It is common for neighborhoods
to object to a new affordable housing development, and some may use the slow land use
entitlements process to delay or “kill” a project. Some market-rate developments may face
opposition in this process, but they may also be in a better financial position to weather delays
ECONorthwest 10
(e.g., if a market rate developer does not need a pre-development loan, delays do not incur
carrying costs).
Public Funding Applications
This is a unique step required of affordable housing development that does not apply to market-
rate development. Often, affordable housing developments receive public funding in exchange
for renting to low-income households. With rents set below market, the property will have
insufficient rent revenue to cover its operating costs and support the loans needed to pay for
development. Thus, the property must apply for a range of low-cost funding, project equity, or
grants to reach feasibility and begin construction. This step adds cost, time, complexity, and
uncertainty to the development process. Because public funding is limited, these application
cycles are very competitive and not all projects will receive the funding to move forward. The
policy goals attached to each funding amount can influence the type of housing built (e.g.,
housing for families or seniors) as well as the income levels served. Most often, a project needs to
have site control before it can receive funding.
How does affordable housing differ?
Market-rate developments do not typically need to secure public funding for development.
Construction
Once a property has site control, entitlements, and a confirmed design concept, it can begin
construction. This stage depends on the availability of labor, materials, and equipment, as well as
the complexity and size of the development. The project will take out a construction loan to cover
these costs, which means that delays in construction incur additional “carrying costs.” The
construction loan is repaid by the permanent loan, which is sized based on the net operating
income of the project (rent revenues minus operating expenses).
How does affordable housing differ?
Affordable housing projects do not meaningfully differ from market-rate projects in the
construction process. However, they may have simpler designs and prioritize faster
construction timelines.
Operations
Once the project is built and leased, it begins operations. Rents are determined at the project
feasibility stage and are very important in the project’s operating phase. Feasibility and funding
applications can occur several years prior to the project operating. The revenues from property
rents need to be high enough to cover the cost of operating the property (including maintenance
and repairs, landscaping, taxes, and numerous other fees and costs). The project’s net operating
ECONorthwest 11
income must also service the monthly debt payments on the permanent loan. Banks generally
require an income “cushion” to assure that the property has enough operating income to pay its
debts. This means that net operating income must be 15 percent to 20 percent higher than the debt
payment. Any change in rent revenues (market softening, competition, vacancies, etc.), costs of
operations (higher taxes, maintenance costs, capital repairs, etc.) can meaningfully disrupt a
property’s operations.
How does affordable housing differ?
Affordable housing properties operate under affordability restrictions for a specified period of
time (e.g., 15-99 years), and are typically managed by mission-driven developers or non-profit
organizations. In contrast, many market rate properties will sell to an institutional investor after
the property stabilizes (after 5 or 8 years of operations). Another difference in affordable housing
operations is that typically, affordable housing properties are required to put a portion of
operating funds into reserves (both capital reserves and or operating reserves) which serve as a
cushion for unexpected vacancies, disruptions to operations, or major capital repairs. These
reserves help prevent most affordable housing properties from defaulting on debt service
requirements (LIHTC properties, in particular, have very low default rates). Market rate
properties are not required to keep reserves. Lastly, another difference in affordable housing
operations, is that often the properties may have insufficient cash flow (funds left over after
paying for operating expenses and debt) to pay for any cash-flow dependent line items (e.g., the
developer fee, cash-flow dependent loans, etc.) In contrast, market rate properties seek financial
returns from the property, to provide steady cash flow to the owner or investor. While cash flow
is not always available due to market rent fluctuations and or vacancies, the deals are structured
to seek financial returns.
Development Context
There are a large number of interrelated variables to consider where affordable housing will be
the most profitable for developers; among these variables are:
Base regulations– base density, height limits, lot coverage or floor-area ratios, etc.
Incentives – fee waivers, density and height bonuses, direct financial contributions, etc.
Inclusionary requirements – length of restrictions, set aside amounts, income levels, etc.
Market conditions – base rents, area annual income growth, land costs, etc.
Infrastructure – mobility (transit, roads, and trails), parks, stormwater, etc.
Internal metrics – developer internal rate of return, finance costs, etc.
ECONorthwest 12
The difficulty in balancing these variables is that since each site, each project, and each developer
have such widely varying characteristics, there is no single equation that results in the provision
of affordable housing; each party can only make decisions that affect their span of control:
Developer: Choosing a region with anticipated profit, controlling for land costs, reducing
the quality of the units, or charging increased prices for the finished units; since the first
is sometimes fixed, and the last two are tied to market rates, controlling for land is often
the overriding factor.
Jurisdiction: Reducing regulatory burden—parking requirements, impact fees,
permitting timelines, cost of compliance, etc.—or increasing incentives.
Outside of control of either party: Financial markets, regional economic growth/decline.
The challenge with affordable mandates is to price the associated incentives in a way to mitigate
the costs.
ECONorthwest 13
UBC$23
APPENDIX G
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AND TINY HOME POLICY
ANALYSIS
DATE: February 1, 2021
TO: Maul Foster & Alongi (MFA), Matt Hoffman
FROM: ECONorthwest, Tyler Bump, Jennifer Cannon, and James Kim
SUBJECT: DRAFT Evaluation of Key Housing Strategies for the Spokane Valley Housing Action Plan
Introduction
ECONorthwest in partnership with MFA is supporting the development of a Housing Action
Plan (HAP) for the City of Spokane Valley to evaluate current and future housing needs and
identify strategies to meet those needs. The HAP is largely made possible due to a Washington
State Department of Commerce Housing Bill 1923 Grant. The overarching aims for the HAP are
to include strategies to increase the supply of housing, and variety of housing types and actions
to increase the supply of housing affordable to all income levels. The approach for developing a
HAP began with an assessment of housing needs, public involvement, and analysis of the
effectiveness of existing policies and potential updates to key regulations. All of this information
collectively will inform the strategic actions to be including in the HAP.
ECONorthwest provided Housing Action Plan content useful for describing Accessory Dwelling
Unit (ADU) and Tiny Home policy updates to consider.
Accessory Dwelling Unit Policies
ADUs, also referred to as mother-in-law apartments, carriage house, granny flat, second unit, are
a self-contained residential unit that is an accessory use to a single-family home and is located on
the parcel with a single-family home. An ADU typically contains all the basic facilities needed for
living independent from the primary residence such as a kitchen and bathroom. ADUs tend to be
smaller in size and scale to the primary single-family home. ADUs can be considered a form of
missing middle housing helping to bridge a gap between single-family housing and multifamily
housing. Generally, this type of housing can be built at a lower cost per unit than single-family
detached housing; however, this is not guaranteed.
An ADU can be configured in different ways such as being attached to a single-family home,
above a garage, or detached from the primary residence. See the examples shown below.
Source: AARP, 2018 ABCs of ADUs Guide and images.
ECONorthwest | Portland | Seattle | Los Angeles | Eugene | Boise | econw.com 1
1
Spokane Valley ADU Regulations:
Type: Both attached or detached are permitted.
Quantity: One ADU is allowed per lot.
Creation: ADU construction is allowed with new or existing primary unit.
Eligibility: ADUs are not allowed on lots with a duplex, multifamily dwelling, or
accessory apartment.
Parking: One off-street parking space required for ADU in addition to existing parking
requirements.
Design Standards:
Appearance: ADU must match primary dwelling unit’s exterior finish materials, roof
pitch, trim, and window proportions and orientation. No guidance on height limits.
Entrance: An attached ADU entrance must be on the side or in the rear to maintain
single-family appearance. No guidance for detached ADU.
Size: ADU cannot be larger than 10% of lot or 1,000 sq/ft (whichever is greater) and
larger than 300 sq/ft while not exceeding 50% of the habitable square footage of
primary dwelling unit. And have no more than two bedrooms.
Setbacks: ADU must comply with existing side and rear setback requirements for a
dwelling unit. For some properties this would be a 20-foot rear setback and for others
the rear setback could be 10 feet.
Permit Fees: It is not clear from the Master Fee Schedule found in Resolution NO. 20-016
which fees apply to ADU permit fees. Clarifying which fees apply to ADU development
will help reduce questions and streamline the process. Below are some fees that may:
ADU Planning: $300
Building: $391.25 – $993.75
Site Plan Review:$80
Certificate of Occupancy: $84.00
Transportation Impact Fee: $1,260
Other: Cargo shipping containers are not permitted as an ADU in residential zoning.
Industrial ADU: This is another type of ADU allowed in Spokane Valley. Code does not
specify which zone it is permissible to build this type of ADU. Main difference from a
regular ADU is that 10 industrial ADUs are allowed per site and are prohibited on the
first floor of the building.
Policy Considerations:
1
City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code Section 19.40.030 Development standards – Accessory dwelling units.
ECONorthwest 2
Adding off-street parking space in addition to the existing parking requirements can
make an ADU more expensive to develop. Parking space requirements tend to increase
the cost of development and can make the development physically impossible when
taking into account the primary and accessory parking unit requirements. Lowering
parking space requirements can be a helpful way to encourage ADU development. If on-
street parking is available or garage or driveway space is available, the City should
consider waiving onerous parking requirements such as prohibiting the use of the
driveway, garage, or carport areas to count for parking. Especially if owner-occupancy is
required, ADUs tend to be located on a lot with shared parking arrangements and the
availability of parking can be coordinated with the primary residence (likely the
landlord) living on-site. Parking spaces could easily cost $5,000 to $7,000 which, given
the cost of development of an ADU, can add substantial cost such that it becomes a
barrier for homeowner financing.
Generally, requiring owner-occupancy of one of the units can negatively impact ADU
2
The City of Renton exempts owner occupancy requirements in exchange
production.
for 60% AMI affordability.
The City should explore whether there are feasible opportunities to relax the size
limitations to allow for more flexibility and larger units and smaller units that could
result from the conversion of garage spaces.
Relaxing the ADU setback requirements (particularly the side and rear) to five feet could
make ADU projects more feasible, particularly on lots with irregular or elongated
shapes.
A city might institute strategic fee waivers for affordable units to encourage more
development, or lower-cost development.
Increasing the density to allow for two ADUs per lot could be helpful particularly if the
City sees increasing demand for ADU housing options. Jurisdictions will not see large
numbers of ADUs actually being constructed until the market rents reach a level that
makes development feasible.
Monitor: Cities possibly will need to address short-term vacation rental use of ADUs
and spillover effects in terms of parking, service, and neighborhood impacts.
Benefits Associated with Promoting ADU Development:
Broadens housing diversity and choices in a broader range of neighborhoods since it can
be offered at a more affordable cost due to their small size. Although ADUs can be
cheaper housing options, this lower cost is not always the case.
Offers additional options for Seniors and younger populations, single person
households, etc.
Can be a source of added income to help pay housing expenses.
2
https://www.planning.org/knowledgebase/accessorydwellings/
ECONorthwest 3
AARP surveyed people 50+ and found, they would consider creating an ADU to provide
a home for a loved one in need of care (84%), provide housing for relatives or friends
(83%), feel safer by having someone living nearby (64%, have a space for guests (69%),
increase the value of their home (67%), create a place for a caregiver to stay (60%), and
earn extra income from renting to a tenant (53%) Source: AARP Home and Community
Preferences Survey, 2018. (AARP Home and Community Preferences Survey, 2018)
ADUs can blend into single-family neighborhoods and be a form of intergenerational
housing.
Tiny Home Policies
Over the last decade, various factors have led to households downsizing and people choosing to
live in smaller, more affordable, and environmentally sustainable dwellings. The concept of
living smaller has been gaining momentum and new models of tiny housing have been popping
up in cities throughout the country.
Tiny houses are one way to provide a housing option for individuals and households who
desire privacy and smaller home size but prefer single-family dwelling home amenities. Tiny
homes, sometimes referred to as micro-homes, are small, single-family dwellings, typically 80 to
3
200 square feet but usually always less than 500 square feet. Tiny homes often have a kitchen
and a bathroom and they can be on wheels (temporary or transitional) or on foundation
(permanent).
Tiny homes are an attractive option for home dwellers because they cost less than a traditional
home and do not require a mortgage; units require less energy and utility services; and some
tiny homes, especially those on wheels, provide dwellers the flexibility of movement. Tiny
homes can be built entirely on the site (stick-built/site-constructed) or can be built elsewhere
and transported to the site such as a factory-built modular home. Tiny house communities
including property that can be rented or held by other others for the placement of tiny houses
can also provide transitional housing for those experiencing homelessness (these villages have
been built in Olympia and Seattle).
Until recently, state law, building codes, and local regulations have presented numerous legal
and logistical barriers to siting and building these very small, detached dwellings. In 2019, the
state legislature passed ESSB 5383, which updated state law to enable the development of tiny
houses or tiny house communities throughout the state. This law defined tiny houses, and
mandated that the building code council write building codes for tiny homes. Washington state
has adopted Appendix Q Tiny Houses which relates to tiny homes on a foundation.
The City of Spokane Valley could consider the following policy updates/additions:
3
Brown, Emily (2016). Overcoming the Barriers to Micro-Housing: Tiny Houses, Big Potential. University of Oregon
Department of Planning, Public Policy, and Management.
ECONorthwest 4
At a minimum, the City should define tiny houses to differentiate from trailers,
manufactured homes, and recreational vehicles. Tiny homes on wheels might be
challenging to address initially due to challenges with zoning compliance, waste-water
treatment, and site design. Some communities have adopted building codes that allow
for long-term occupancy of tiny homes, but in many towns and cities the legality of
long-term occupancy hinges on whether the tiny home is on a permanent foundation
and connected to public utilities. Consequently, focusing on clarifying regulations with
tiny houses on foundations (not on wheels) could be addressed as a first step. The City
could allow tiny homes, set on a foundation, to be utilized as an ADU.
Zoning code requirements can create additional barriers: Tiny homes may not be
addressed in the zoning code as a permitted use, and if so, there may be a limit on which
zoning areas allow them. Certain zoning areas have minimum lot size, setbacks, and
parking requirements that are prohibitive. The City of Walsenburg, Colorado’s city
council eliminated a zoning code that prohibited residential dwellings of 600 square feet
4
The permitted use table
or less, allowing more housing in the mountain-town city.
should be modified to identify where tiny houses or tiny house villages would be
permitted outright or conditionally allowed.
The building code can be the most significant hurdle for legally constructing a tiny
home. The City should consider whether to adopt the updated International Residential
(2018) since this has been modified to encompass tiny
Code (IRC) with Appendix Q
house construction. This IRC defines a tiny house as a dwelling smaller than 400 square
feet excluding lofts. The Washington state legislature (via ESB 5383) recognizes that the
IRC has issued tiny house building code standards in Appendix Q which can provide a
5
basis for the standards requested within this act.As a first step, the City should solicit
input or convene a focus group or working group including tiny house owners and
developers, city planners, and city building code experts to review how tiny homes
would fit in the existing site plan approval process and identify regulatory barriers and
possible areas of flexibility related to the use of the IRC.
4
For more information, visit: https://www.cityofwalsenburg.net/tiny-homes
5
The cities of Seattle, Tacoma, and Olympia have adopted Code to address tiny homes.
ECONorthwest 5
UBC$24
The housing supply in the Spokane continues to fall to record low levels
at all pricing points. In February of 2021, we gathered the top minds in
the industry at the national, regional, and local levels to provide a
market-based analysis of housing needs for our region.
This white paper serves as a guidepost that provides a full picture of the
true need for housing, the impacts of housing policies in our region, the
needs of Spokane, what residents want, the influence of buyer migration
from larger metro markets, a history of under-supply and the social
impacts to our community.
1
We must no longer turn a blind eye to the impacts in our community from a severe lack of housing. For more
than a decade, we have failed to build enough homes to meet demands. As a result, housing prices are
increasing at never-before-seen pace.
To find answers as to why, the Spokane Association of REALTORS® gathered some of the greatest minds, with
national, regional, and local standing, for a Spokane Region Housing Needs Summit. Their voices make it clear
as to the impacts this is having on our community.
This report lays out the challenges facing our industry and our communities. I encourage you to keep this as a
reference guide for the discussions ahead.
As REALTORS® - we are uniquely positioned to advocate for change. It is a responsibility we must now bear, to
best serve our neighbors, our community, and our industry.
Let us get to work!
Eric Johnson
2021 President
Spokane Association of REALTORS®
2
Executive Summary
The housing crisis in the Spokane region has reached a critical level and is threatening the stability of our
region. That is the consensus of a panel of national and regional economists and housing experts who came
together for a Spokane Region Housing Needs Summit hosted by the Spokane Association of
REALTORS®. These experts were brought together to help us better understand the true housing needs of the
Spokane region, and the answers they provided were alarming.
Among the key findings:
The Spokane area’s housing supply is severe, with a 94% reduction in available homes for sale since
2010.
A lack of inventory has escalated the median home price in Spokane County 66.8% since 2015 with a
median home increase from $179,000 (2016) to over $300,000 (2020).
From 2010 to 2019 the Spokane Regionunderbuilt approximately 32,000 housing unitsto meet
demand.
This has resulted in lost economic opportunity - $6-billion dollars in wages and employment since
2010, $1.1-billion dollars in immediate and ongoing tax revenues.
A lack of inventory has led to thousands of families renting who cannot find a place to buy.
Vacancies in regional rentals remains at a dangerous level of around 1%.
The biggest lack of inventory lies in entry level or workforce housing.
From personal health to family stress, to student performance in school, to increased levels of
homelessness, Spokane’s lack of housing has triggered a severe impact on the health of our citizens –
especially among minorities and our youth.
Spokane has high levels of cost-burdened families spending more of their income on shelter than most
similar cities in the state and the US.
The Spokane Region is among the top places to move in the country with expected growth of 48,000
more people by the year 2030.
Many new homebuyers are migratingfrom larger West coast markets adding 8-to-14,000 new
residents annually
The market has shifted with bulk of new homes in our region now built across the border in Idaho.
Local public policy has resulted in the lack of housing production.
In the City of Spokane’s 20-year plan to build around centers and corridorsnot one single
development has happened
You can watch the summit for yourself here- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5t7NYNhMwYI
3
Table of Contents
"Spokane Region Housing Costs and Supply”
Spokane Association of REALTORS® .................................................................................................................. 5
"Housing Affordability and the First Time Homebuyers Squeeze”
James Young –Director of the Washington Center for Real Estate Research ................................................... 7
“Housing Growth Continues as the Economy Recovers in 2021”
Danushka Nanayakkara-Skillington - NAHB Assistant VP for Forecasting and Analysis ................................ 11
"Housing Underproduction for Washington State and Spokane"
Mike Kingsella – Up For Growth National Director ......................................................................................... 15
"Spokane Emerges As A Top 10 Real Estate Market in a Post-COVID Environment"
Jessica Lautz –VP of Demographics and Behavioral InsightsNational Association of REALTORS®................. 19
"A Summary of Population Forecasts and Origins of Recent Newcomers to Spokane County"
D. Patrick Jones, PhD – Executive Director of EWU’s Institute for Public Policy & Economic Analysis .......... 22
"The Social Impacts of Low Housing Stock in Spokane"
Vange M. Ocasio Hocheimer, PhD – Associate Professor of Economic, Whitworth University Research...... 28
"Housing Needs Assessment Survey for Spokane Spring 2020"
Sara Stephenson –American Strategies .......................................................................................................... 33
"The Shifting Marketplace: How Spokane Lost Market Share to Kootenai County."
Jim Frank – Director of the Washington Center for Real Estate Research ....................................................... 37
"The Missing Housing Supply for Low Income Families "
Ben Stuckart – Spokane Low Income Housing Consortium ............................................................................. 40
"Broken Pledges Under the Growth Management Act"
Al French – Spokane County Commissioner .................................................................................................... 42
4
Spokane Region Housing Costs and Supply
-Data supplied by the Spokane Association of REALTORS®
Spokane County is currently suffering from the lowest level of housing supply in history. In housing terms,
there is under a 10-day supply of homes. By contrast, a 4-to-6-month supply represents a balanced market.
This is a trend that we have seen growing since 2010.
MLS Housing Availability Data 2010-2021
2,348
94.3% Decrease 2010-21
1,427
164
201020172021
Homes for Sale end of January
Source:
In raw numbers, there were 2,348 homes available in January of 2010. By the end January of this year, that
number had fallen to 164 homes. This represents a housing inventory reduction of 94%.
MLS Lockbox Openings Data 2012-2020
45% 2012-20
21,274
20,903
14,664
201220162020
Showings for August
Source:
During this time frame (data kept since 2012) we measured data for the number of home showings as a
representation of customer demand. Was we have seen in an increase in the showings of homes by 45% as
measured by the number of lockbox openings.
5
MLS Housing Data 2010-2020
300,000
66.8% Increase 2015-20
283,527
234,900
210,000
195,000
179,900
168,000
164,500
163,312160,000
154,300
20102011201220132014201520162017201820192020
Median Home Prices for Spokane County
Source:
As a result of this increased demand, and reduced supply the cost of housing in the Spokane Region has
continued to accelerate. Since 2015, the median priced home in the region has gone from $179,000 to
$300,000. This represents an increase of median priced homes of 66.8% from 2015 through 2020. By
comparison, median home prices increased from 2010-2014 by only 2.8%
These statistics represent the sales of single-family homes on less than one acre, including condominiums.
6
Housing Affordability and the First Time Homebuyers Squeeze
James Young – Director of the Washington Center for Real Estate Research
The Spokane Housing Market continues to show a rapid decline in affordable homes, particularly for those
looking to enter the home ownership ranks for the first time. As recent as the third quarter of 2015, home
ownership has been attainable by roughly 100% of buyers making 85% of the median income in the Spokane
Region. Today, those numbers translate to under 75% of renters.
Too often, those who have saved up and are ready to buy face a regional supply of less than a handful of
homes. The market is seeing multiple offers (often 20 to 30 offers) on these entry level or workforce homes
priced at $250,000 or below, with an average time on market of just a few days before going under contract.
Spokane has long exceeded the rest of Washington for affordability, but in the past few years, that status has
changed, especially for first time homebuyers.
First Time Buyers Index
140.0
120.0
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
SpokaneWashington
Source: Washington State Housing Market Report: WCRER
7
As home prices continue to escalate, more and more buyers are being squeezed out of the marketplace. This
is especially true for those seeking to buy their first home, or transition down to a smaller home.
First Time Buyer Market Dynamics
220,00050.0%
210,00045.0%
200,00040.0%
190,00035.0%
180,00030.0%
170,00025.0%
160,00020.0%
150,00015.0%
140,00010.0%
130,0005.0%
120,0000.0%
2014201520162017201820192020
Spokane % Sold
Source: Washington State Housing Market Report: WCRER
Since 2018, the available housing for first time home buyers has fallen to roughly 15% of the marketplace. This
has resulted in tremendous pressure on the rental market with vacancies falling to an unhealthy rate of about
1%.
Rental Housing Market
Spokane Rents and Vacancies
12004.00%
3.50%
1100
3.00%
1000
2.50%
900
2.00%
800
1.50%
700
1.00%
600
0.50%
5000.00%
SpringFall 2014SpringFall 2015SpringFall 2016SpringFall 2017SpringFall 2018SpringFall 2019SpringFall 2020
2014201520162017201820192020
Average RentVacancy Rate
Source: Washington State Housing Market Report: WCRER
8
These rising rental rates create what we call the Prisoner’s Dilemma, where renters find themselves using more
of their resources month-to-month for housing costs, instead of being able to save up for a down payment.
Building Permits by Type
Building Permits by Type
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
2011201220132014201520162017201820192020
Single Family
Source: US Census Bureau, WCRER
As a result, the marketplace has reacted with a dramatic increase in multi-family rental units during this same time
period. To put this in context for each construction type - that is more than the TOTAL all of the building permits issues
in the years 2014, 2013, 2012, and 2011. Condominium construction is now less than 10% of the marketplace in 2020,
with over half of these new units age restricted to those 55 and older.
9
Security and Tenure
SF Houses close to the city
>Housing Ladder
Higher-end townhouses close to the city
High-rise urban condominium -
SF Houses inner suburbs
Ownership -
TH close to the city
High-rise urban condominium –
Trade-up
SF Houses in suburbs
TH in inner suburbs
MISSING HIGHER DENSITY HOUSING OPTION
Townhouses in mid-suburbs
Ownership -
Quality
MISSING HIGHER DENSITY HOUSING OPTION
First-
Rent/Price
Townhouses in outer suburbs
buyers
MISSING RUNG OF THE LADDER ON SUPPLY
High quality MF Suburban Housing
Medium Quality MF Housing closer to the urban core
Rental Tenure
High quality MFH in the suburbs
Medium quality MFH closer to the urban core
Older apartments and hotels -ADUs
In conclusion, with steady interest rates we should see first-time buyers able to afford more of a home than in
the past. But this major decline in existing home listings has created a shortage of supply, and has created a
“Prisoner’s Dilemma” in the marketplace. The pre-Covid demand trends have only been accelerated during
this time period, making it clear that a lack of supply for first time buyers is creating acute problems in the
Spokane housing market. As a result, this housing demand has nowhere to go but the rental market.
This will become problematic in the next few years as Spokane finds itself unable to meet owner’s
expectations. Both for those living here, and those who are migrating here from West Coast Urban Centers.
The key to solving this dilemma is clear. Housing supply leads to ownership opportunities. Without them, the
market will continue to make home ownership more and more difficult.
10
Housing Growth Continues as the Economy Recovers in 2021
Danushka Nanayakkara-Skillington – National Association of Home Builders
Assistant Vice President for Forecasting and Analysis
The national economy was growing at a strong and steady pace of about a 3.4% GDP growth until the advent
of the coronavirus shutdown. The result led to a complete reversal with a negative 3.6% fall in GDP for 2020.
We see this growth trend resuming once the effects of Covid 19 have been reduced. While there are
immediate concerns with the effects of the emerging new mutations of the virus, we are optimistic that the
roll out of vaccinations will help move the economy to a more normal pace. As such, we see the GDP growth
nationally to reach 3.6% for 2021, and 4% in 2022.
11
Spokane’s employment rates have lagged the rest of Washington,while the economic recovery appears to
have resumed, but has flattened out slightly in comparison to the rest of the state.
The good news is that the Feds are all-in with their financial support of the economy. Since 2009, the Federal
Funds top rate has remained below 1%. While there was a temporary raising of the rates from 2017 to 2020,
the rate has returned to below 1%, giving strong support towards interest rates staying low for the near-term.
12
Home prices in Spokane are predicted to continue a strong upward movement with an average annual
increase projected to be between 8.04% and 12.15%. This puts Spokane in the top 20 markets for Home Price
Growth based on a lack of inventory and a growing demand for homes.
While Spokane still ranks above the National mark for housing affordability, we see that number continuing to
fall into 2021 with ann affordability index going below 63%,
13
Spokane saw an increase in softwood lumber prices since mid-April of 177%(from $350 per thousand board
feet, to $966 April 2020 to Feb 2021), which has added about $16,000 to the average price of a home. Yet,
Spokane’sRegulatory Costs related to the share of home prices stands between 24.3% and 30.3% of the home
construction costs when compared to other markets in the country.
The good news is that there is tremendous economic opportunity that comes with an increase of housing
supply. On average, each new home adds $188,962 in wages and salaries to the economy, along with 2.9 jobs.
(NAHB also projects $3.6 million in local tax revenues for each 100 homes built -
)
14
Housing Underproduction for Washington State and Spokane
Mike Kingsella
Up For Growth National Director
“Spokane’s housing stock is rapidly becoming unaffordable. From 2010-2017
Spokane ranked as the number one most affordable entry level home city in the
th
country. Today it’s 45 (of 100) and falling.”
Source: AEI Carpenter Index
Across the State of Washington, and in Spokane County in particular, there are not enough homes relative to
need. While this is a trend many attribute to being a nationwide problem, we see the biggest challenges to
growth lies primarily on the West Coast.
In Washington State, this lack of production has not kept up with growth going back to 2010, with the State
underproducing some 225,000 homes from 2010 to 2017. ECO Northwest that compiled this data for us
determined that Spokane county’s growth figure represents approximately .73 homes for every new family,
with a national average of 1.06 homes per family.
15
The high cost of underproduction can be measured in several key areas, specifically in greenhouse gas
emissions, loss ofgrowth and revenue to residents and in lost tax revenue benefits.
In Spokane, this lack of construction has dramatically shifted the cost burden of housing, both in terms of rent
and ownership with severe impacts to 22% of homeowners and 48% of renters. This results in about 73,000
households facing cost burdening, averaging out to roughly one in three families.
16
Cost-burdening happens when families pay more than 33% of their income towards their total housing costs.
The additional challenge for those renters who are cost-burdened is that it makes it incredibly difficult to save
for a down payment to purchase a home.
The impact of home ownership continues to drop with each rising cost of housing. Across the board we are
seeing fewer and fewer people able to afford a home in Spokane.
17
Updating our numbers from the 2017 study, we see a continuation of the housing underproduction in Spokane
County. Given the aging housing stock in Spokane, with a higher percentage of post-WW2 housing built (in
conjunction with ECO Northwest) we have determined that Spokane’s housing unit needs are at 1.15 homes
per new household.
In the final analysis, time is of the essence. With building costs, land acquisition and regulatory costs on the
rise, the result is the cost of entry level housing is increasing, with fewer units being built. Long run
affordability requires sustained production of housing units.
We believe better planning, zoning, and land-use policies can help builders better meet the market, delivering
more inventory, while increasing housing affordability in the process.
18
Spokane Emerges As Top-10 Post-Covid Real Estate Market
Jessica Lautz – VP of Demographics and Behavioral Insights –
National Association of REALTORS®
“--
The National Association of REALTORS® has released its Economic forecast for 2021-22 and has determined
that Spokane will be among the top 10 housing markets in the United States as a Top-10 Post-Covid Real
Estate Market.
19
The Spokane-Spokane Valley Metro area stands out as having the highest fraction of its movers from West
Coast Areas, accounting for23.8% of people who moved in the area in 2018. In terms of movers, Spokane
stands with Phoenix/Scottsdale as the most attractive for West Coast movers. A high fraction of this migrating
workforce works from home, at 7.1%. While house prices have gone up substantially in the last 5 years, prices
here remain very attractive from expensive West Coast metro areas.
Among the prominent numbers used in making our assessment, we noted that over 8,000 people moved here
in 2019, mimicking a similar migration in 2018. This represents nearly one in four movers escaping West Coast
metro areas. (8.312 of 34,896).
Based on other regional cities, Spokane looks very attractive from a Qualifying Income perspective. With 5%
down, buyers in Spokane can qualify for a home with an annual income of $61,500 versus say Seattle with a
$116,300 qualifying income.
20
With the number of businesses that have closed due to Covid, there is an increased opportunity for small
business creation in the Post-Covid era. One in six homebuyers are now seeking a multigenerational home,
with fits the Spokane profile. Aging parents are the number one reason, with children under 30 the second
reason at 54% Offsetting this number is falling number of buyers with children, at 58% of homes in 1985 down
to only 33% today.
Washington’s economic recovery is moving slower than much of the country. 46.4% are working from home.
19.55% expect a loss of income in the next 2-months. 25.7% are having difficulty paying their usual household
expenses, with 5.5% have slight or no confidence in paying next month’s rent or mortgage on time.
There is good new on the horizon. The National Association of REALTORS® in our Housing and Economic
Forecast are projecting mortgage rates to remain competitively low through 2021 at roughly 3% nationally for
a 30-year fixed mortgage. With unemployment still high at 6.5% - but much lower than the Covid era in 2020
of 8.1%.
21
“A Summary of Population Forecasts and Origins of Recent Newcomers to
Spokane County”
D. Patrick Jones, PhD – Executive Director of EWU’s Institute for Public Policy &
Economic Analysis
W
Spokane and Spokane County have grown consistently over the past 20 years, but
something began to happen in 2018 that saw these growth rates begin to change. In Spokane County, since
2010 we have seen about a 1% growth, adding about 51,000 residents. Yet, that growth rate started to
increase in 2018 to 1.5%.
In the City of Spokane, the annual compounded growth rate since 20010 has been about .7%, or roughly
15,000 residents. With a similar increase happening since 2018 increasing to a 1% growth rate. Surprisingly,
the average household size in Spokane is about 2.25 residents per home compared to Spokane County at 2.4.
This is a trend that looks like its going to continue that way.
These numbers are reflected in the 2017 Growth Management Act forecast that show us growing at a steady
rate to a population Spokane County wide of about 564,538. Historically, these estimates have been slightly
underreported by a factor of about 0.1%.
22
One trend that continues is that Spokane continues to shrink its population when compared to that of the
County.
Where has this growth occurred?
23
The largest increase has been in Airway Heights with over 5% growth since 2010, and Liberty Lake of about
4.25%. I believe we will see a replication of this pattern of growth that will continue in the decade ahead.
What will be driving this will be the housing preferences of in-migration families along with the ability of the
City of Spokane to foster urban businesses such as the technology sector, professional and scientific services.
Additionally, Spokane will need to address its municipal regulations to adapt to these changing patterns or
else risk losing these arrivals to those that better address their needs.
24
In trying to make a stronger forecast for population growth specific to the City of Spokane (COS), there are
three separate models to consider that will each represent a different picture.
The first, is a model based on the historical share of Spokane County’s population (an average growth rate)
The second is a compounded annual growth rate of the county, and finally the City of Spokane’s 2020 share of
the county’s population.
Using these approaches, we see a range of population gain in the next ten years of between 15,716 and
23,103 people – with a total population growth by 2030 of between 239,316 and 246,703 people. While the
growth projected gain for Spokane County would be an additional 90,000 people by 2030. The challenge
becomes one for us to answer: “How much do we want to grow?” While these are only 1 to 3 percent growth
numbers, each represents its own set of consequences.
Based on these projections we see the overall need for housing units in the City of Spokane to add an
additional 8,420 homes in the next 9 years. The housing need for these populations are different for owner-
occupied versus those who are renting, with the average household size about 2.33 for homeowners.
25
Some demand numbers for housing units over
the next decade in City of Spokane
•-occupied
and renter-occupied (55%/45%) were to hold in 2030, then…
–~ 4,631 single family homes needed between now and 2030, or
460/year
–~3,790 apartment units needed, or 379/year
•,
forecast is correct, because:
–The current market in the City doesn’t have an adequate supply
–The trend in COS household size is showing smaller averages
–Countervailing trend:
If the current homeowner versus renter ratios stays the same (55% vs 45%) this projection equates to a need
of 4,631 single family homes in the City of Spokane, and 3,790 apartment units needed by 2030.
These numbers are likely to be conservative because they are making a few assumptions:
Spokane already is suffering from an adequate supply of homes.
The trend in the City of Spokane is to show smaller averages than the county.
The City of Spokane’s share of the population continues to trend down (slowly)
We should note that the trend of new families to Spokane really began to increase with a peak of 11,454
people in 2018 and continuing through 2020 with 8.412. This number represents driver license surrenders we
saw with those new here that obtained a local driver’s license. (Washington’s DOL recognizes that drivers from
Washington State may not be a quick to surrender in-state licenses)
We should see these new families reflected in the upcoming estimates by the OFM for population in April of
2021, along with an actual count being developed from the 2020 US Census report.
26
Where are these new visitors coming from?
Most are coming from California, Idaho, and Oregon. With Arizona, Montana and Texas following. This
represents roughly three-quarters of all new families. Within the state King County is first, following by
Stevens, Snohomish, and Pierce County. Additionally, we see 2017-2018 IRS data supporting the notion that a
large portion of our incoming population is coming from outside Washington State.
27
“The Social Impacts of Low Housing Stock in Spokane”
Vange M. Ocasio Hocheimer, PhD – Associate Professor of Economic, Whitworth
University
“A
our
Housing as a Social Determinant of Health combines several well-established standards seen in the literature.
Specifically defined these are “the conditions that shape the health of individuals.” Housing specifically is
among the key social and economic conditions necessary for the individual and our communities. Here in
Spokane, we are seeing the effects of a lack of housing as it impacts increasing rates of illness, mental health,
and homelessness.
Among the biggest factors is the increase in those spending more of their income for shelter costs. This
increasing cost burden (more than 30% of their income on housing) is that over 48% of renters now in
Spokane County, much higher than in the state.
Those considered to be “severely burdened,” spending more than 50% of their income on housing, now tops
23% in Spokane County.
28
Conventional wisdom shows that Risky Behaviors, leads to Drug use, which leads to Academic
Underachievement – and unemployment, which leads to Homelessness.
But the data in Spokane is now clear.
29
The social impact of a lack of available housing in Spokane has, in many cases reversed this process.
Homelessness often happens first. Often from some traumatic event. Resulting in a completely different
model for many local individuals, with a host of negative social impacts. We see this specifically with the
student population where we have seen a 25% increase in children impacted by some level of homelessness
since 2007. These impacts are greater in Spokane County than across the state and the US.
The Spokane School District has identified 1,644 students that are affected by a lack of housing. With increases
seen in the elementary schools, along with higher rates for High school. Many suffer from a wide range of
housing experiences, including doubling up in beds, temporary housing in motels or shelters and 7% not
having any shelter at all. This represents about 4.7% of students in the Spokane School District.
These students across the board suffer academically. Lower attendance rates, changing schools, lower English
and Mathematic proficiencies. and a lower graduation success rate.
30
Mead School District has seen a comparable number, about 4.6% of all students with similar academic
challenges. But Mead is also seeing a lower graduation rate – only 65% of housing impacted students
compared to 91% graduation rates.
Other impacts to Spokane’s youth include higher rates of suicide and greater use of drugs. Rates among Blacks
and those who identify as 2 or more races is also on the increase. It is of note that these groups are
disproportionally seen have having housing issues greater than White, Asian, and Hispanic families in Spokane
County.
31
While the rates of serious mental illness have grown exponentially in Spokane County since 2015, nearly
doubling that of the rest of Washington State. With the largest group being individuals 18 years of age and
younger.
In summation, it is clear the pathway to improved health and wellbeing for all people in our community begins
with housing. Renters that become homeowners have a greater sense of “home” shown to greatly reduce the
stress of uncertainty, increases sense of neighborhood and well-being, increases available social interactions
that brings a level of social support, and helps reduce financial stress.
32
“Housing Needs Assessment Survey for Spokane Spring 2020”
Sara Stephenson – American Strategies
-
American Strategies is a national polling firm specializing in housing issues. We did a survey in Spokane back in April of
2020. Our survey pool was over 500 voters in Spokane. This data has been weighted to match the demographics of
Spokane.
There is a perception of housing costs in Spokane that costs are too high. Half of voters (48% buying a home) say the
cost to buy is too high, compared to over 2/3’s who believe rents are too high.
2/3 of Spokane Voters Say the Cost of Rent is Too High;
Almost Half Believe the Cost to Buy a House is too High
Cost of Housing And Rentals
80%
+41
67%
60%
+0
48%48%
40%
26%
20%
0%
Cost to buy a houseCost to rent an apartment
Too highAbout right
Q.11 Generally speaking, wouldyou say that the cost to buy a house in Spokane is (ROTATE FIRST TO LAST AND
LAST TO FIRST) too high, about right, or too low?
Q.12 And would you say that the cost to rent an apartment in Spokane is (ROTATE FIRST TO LAST AND LAST TO
FIRST) too high, about right, or too low?
When this survey was conducted at the beginning stages of the Covid crisis, we saw that Spokane residents were already
feeling the economic effects of rising housing costs. 40% reported that housing was putting either a severe or slight
strain on their monthly budgets.
33
Northeast Residents, Younger Voters, and Renters
More Likely to Feel Financial Strain of Rent or Mortgage
Financial Strain of Your Rent/Mortgage by Region, Age and Homeownership
A slight strain
Total
14%25%39%
Northeast
26%28%54%
East Central
19%22%41%
Northwest
14%26%40%
Far NW
12%21%33%
South
8%20%28%
West Central 7%33%40%
18-34 16%31%47%
35-49 18%33%51%
50-64 15%19%34%
65+8%16%24%
Rent
27%26%53%
Own
7%23%30%
Q.19 And, prior to the coronavirus pandemic,
rent or mortgage each month? Was it (ROTATE FIRST TO LAST AND LAST TO FIRST) , a slight
strain, not much of a strain, or no strain at all?
The data is clear that the strain is being felt more geographically, specifically to renters in the Northeast, and
the East and West Central Neighborhoods. These effects are also seen more with voters who are 35-49 years
of age.
Those with Lower Income, , and
People of Color Are More Likely to Report Financial Strain
Financial Strain of Your Rent/, Race and Income
A slight strain
Total 14%25%39%
High school or less 22%22%44%
Post high school
17%30%47%
4-year college graduate
9%24%33%
Post graduate
6%20%26%
People of Color 29%23%52%
White 11%25%36%
Less than $50k
23%28%51%
$50k-$100k
10%26%36%
More than $100k
5%16%21%
Q.19 And, prior to the coronavirus pandemic,
rent or mortgage each month? Was it (ROTATE FIRST TO LAST AND LAST TO FIRST) , a slight
strain, not much of a strain, or no strain at all?
34
When we break down the data even further, we find significant differences with those who are of lower
income, people of color and lower levels of education are feeling a greater financial strain. And remember,
these numbers were done before the full effects of Covid were being felt. Were this survey to be repeated, we
would see these numbers with even higher gaps between these groups.
1/3 of Spokane Voters Would Prefer to Move to a New Home
M;
Preference for Future Housing by Home Ownership
80%
78%
60%
60%
51%
40%
32%
29%
20%
18%
16%
2%
10%
0%
All votersRentersHomeowners
Buy a new home or condo
Move to a new apartment
Q.22 As you think ahead a few years, would you like to (ROTATE) ,
buy a new home or condo, or move to a new apartment?
Surprisingly, one in three voters would prefer to move to a new home. We saw the greatest need among
renters, with 51% telling us they are actively looking to buy a new home or condo. One of the key reasons we
heard was that finding a home to buy is a serious challenge. Also, one in five people said they are looking to
buy a new home.
Non-White and Younger Residents Are More Likely to
Want to Buy a New Home
Percent Who Would Like to Buy a New Home in the Next Few Years
Total
29%
Non-white 55%
Renters
51%
Non-college under 50
47%
Current
Residence
18-34
45%
60%
Women under 50 45%
Residence length < 5 years 44%
Men under 50
38%
Post high school
38%
Buy a new home or condo
Q.22 As you think ahead a few years, would you like to (ROTATE) , buy a new
home or condo, or move to a new apartment?
35
Of those wanting to buy, we found a significant higher number of non-white and younger residents wanting to
purchase a home but are still in rental units. Across all of these groups you can clearly see a pent-up demand
reflected for more housing.
What type of policies would Spokane voters support for the building of more homes to address the lack of
inventory and to lower the costs of homes?
We saw broad consensus for providing incentives to developers, and for requiring set asides below market
prices for housing, along with expanding zoning regulations to allow more alternative housing options like
carriage homes, accessory dwelling units and tiny homes, along with more multi-family options like
townhomes, duplexes, or apartment buildings. Many of these options are not currently available in Spokane.
You should recognize that of the surveys we have done nationwide, we rarely see such levels of support for
developer incentives like we see here in Spokane. This survey shows that voters in Spokane clearly want more
options, are actively seeking opportunities, are feeling burdened by costs, and are willing to support policies
that would foster these changes.
36
“The Shifting Marketplace: How Spokane Lost Market Share To Kootenai
County.”
Jim Frank – Founder/Developer – Greenstone Homes
-
I have been a home builder in this market for almost 35 years. And we’ve seen key changes in this market over the past
10 years, particularly with a significant market share growth change between Spokane and Kootenai County. If you look
at 2011, there were around 172 new home sales in Kootenai, about 25% of the regional market shared with Spokane. By
2020, the Kootenai County market closed over 1000 homes and for the first time exceeded 50% of the regional housing
market.
This graphic shows the consistent trend over the past 10 years. This is data we collect on closings that lag permits by
about one year. Most of the losses in Spokane County has been seen primarily within the City of Spokane.
There are several key reasons we are seeing this shifting housing market.
37
While it is true that land costs are lower and more abundant in Idaho, we are also seeing critical reasons that Spokane is
becoming less desirable for housing development. The urban growth boundaries in Spokane have become very
restrictive. This is not something that is in place in Kootenai county. Coeur d’ Alene, Post Falls, Rathdrum and Hayden
have been able to annex boundary lands that have effectively expanded their growth opportunities.
Idaho has done a great job marketing their regional quality of life. It’s clear there are higher migration patterns into
Kootenai County then there are into Spokane County based on our data. Virtually every home we sell in Kootenai County
has more offers than we see in Spokane.
While Spokane County is working to implement more urban infill strategies, Spokane’s urban village corridor concept
has never been implemented with development regulations that allow this to occur. Instead, what is happening in
Spokane is we are building houses on large lots, and we build large apartment complexes, and we build nothing in
between. We simply do not have the development regulations that allow this to happen. Idaho does. In fact, they offer
different levels of condominium opportunities alone in the Coeur d’ Alene area because of this flexibility in development
opportunities.
There has not been a condominium development built in Spokane since the State’s condominium reform in 2009. This
removed a critical step in the affordable housing ladder. We need to allow a wider range of uses and flexibility in
housing projects.
We are also seeing the impacts of out-of-town buyers to our region starting in the last four years. in Spokane, that
number reached 44% in 2020, up from about 32% in 2017.
38
To put that in a market perspective, we’re seeing 59% of out-of-town buyers purchasing homes in Kootenai County –
compared to 30% in Spokane County in 2020. A lot of that is due to the greater range of product, and more housing
stock available, and the impact of Kootenai marketing the quality of life, such as the advantages of being near the lakes,
rivers, and smaller town America. Covid has only accelerated that need.
The real lesson here is the importance of having middle-income housing, the importance of having housing diversity, the
importance of having integrated neighborhoods with a wide range of housing types along with a wide range of economic
opportunities and neighborhoods.
It’s going to take a dramatic change in our development regulations at both the state and local levels to allow that to
happen.
39
“The Missing Housing Supply for Low Income Families”
Ben Stuckart – Spokane Low Income Housing Consortium
“
First, a couple of definitions that define what Low-Income Housing means
1. Can you afford it if you make 80% of the median income or below? By afford it we mean you should
be spending 35% or less of your monthly income on rent or a mortgage. This can include market rate
housing at the lower end
2. Homes and apartments for rent that accept vouchers can be considered low-income
3. Homes and apartments that were built with government subsidy should be considered low-income.
Once they use build with these funds they are required to keep rents low enough to be considered
low-income.
Spokane County has about 5000 subsidized units representing less than 5% of the units available in total in the
county. If we are lucky another 3-4,000 accept vouchers. Successful cities have over 15-20% of their housing
stock subsidized to take care of those on the edge of poverty or in poverty.
Wait lists alone right now for the 12 largest managers/owners of subsidized housing could fill 2000 units
tomorrow.
A wait list for Spokane Housing Ventures today is typically 4 years. Other agencies experience waiting lists
between 1 and 4 years. We do not have the housing supply to move people from the streets into housing.
Government Funds to build low-income housing have been decreasing over time, not just not keeping up with
inflation but decreasing.
HOME funds are a popular federal fund to use. Amounts fluctuate but this one statistic is telling: In 1992 the
City of Spokane received $1.3 million in HOME funds to build more housing. In 2018 the City of Spokane
received $1.3 million in HOME funds to build low-income housing. The Housing Trust Fund (State) just
returned to 2008 levels in 2020. No adjustment for inflation.
State and Federal funding sources have not kept up with demand.
The City of Spokane recently passed HB1590 which puts local sales tax dollars into building more low-income
housing. The $6 million this will generate is a good start but we need the County and the Valley to also figure
out a way to dedicate dollars to low-income housing.
Market Rate Housing is just as important as the subsidized housing. A 2018 UC Berkeley study discussed how
a new high end home allowed 6 different families to move up and free market rate housing at levels below the
new home.
40
We have created our own issues in housing:
Using environmental standards like the States Evergreen standards to increase costs so now a non-
profit who builds low-income housing and uses State dollars spends over 50% square foot than a
market rate housing developer building the same unit.
The Growth Management Act said donot spread out BUT assumed cities would implement their
comprehensive plans. The City of Spokane has a Centers and Corridors Strategy BUT has never taken
the step to create density around the 28 Centers and Corridors. This is a byproductof NIMBYism and
strong neighborhood councils that favor the status quo over any change to current single-familyzones.
The entire system is setup to continue the racial inequities of the last 100 years. Further entrenching
those in poverty in the same neighborhoods with no ability to buy a home and create wealth.
The Federal and State say if you use any of their funds to build low-income housing in must be in a
census tract with high poverty. Thus you never have mixed income neighborhoods and they are always
in the same neighborhoods. The City perpetuates this by never spreading the multi-family zones to
new neighborhoods and concentrating the density in west central and east central.
We have to build more low-income housing. But we must also build more market rate housing, or the problem
will continue to snowball.
41
“Broken Pledges Under the Growth Management Act.”
Al French – Spokane County Commissioner
I have been closely involved in housing development and policies going back to 1995 when I first served on the City of
Spokane’s Planning Commission. I served eight years on the Spokane City Council and am now in my tenth year as a
Spokane County Commissioner. So, I have had to deal with the State’s Growth Management Act (GMA) for several
decades (enacted in 1990).
There were promises made 26 years ago when we adopted the comp plan under the GMA that just have never been
realized. By design, this was aimed at moving more development and retail opportunities into the urban areas which
lowered each county’s ability to provide services from the correlating tax base. We have also seen this act now
becoming a political tool, with efforts to add elements such as for climate change, and greenhouse gas reduction, but
without any funding to help counties implement such strategies. These costs are passed on to consumers raising the
costs of housing. One example is the recent changes in building codes that increase efficiency (by one or two percent)
but add $15 to $20 thousand to the cost of a new home.
Tragically, this prices many families from buying these homes.
One key benefit of adding more infill to our urban areas is supposed to be to lower the cost of housing. Unfortunately,
by restricting the access to lands, the simple rule of “supply and demand” results in land costs being artificially pushed
up.
We are seeing new jobs coming to such as the Spokane Valley, and Airway Heights without the equal number of
workforce housing opportunities. As such, we are seeing a greater demand on our area roadways. Interstate 90 is
suffering from traffic backups and delays seen in large metropolitan regions.
In the county, we are working to remove some of these barriers to affordable homes by allowing for more homes to be
built on smaller lots. But this is a short-term fix until the market begins to adjust.
Home ownership is one of the hallmarks of this country, and a primary wealth-builder for many families. Because of
restrictive condo legislation, we are seeing multi-family opportunities restricted to apartments or townhouses.
When you restrict land, and limit housing types, you create a housing crisis that we are currently in.
Increased density will also create more retail business opportunities closer to where people live. This can reduce travel
times – something that is not seen in this state. Spokane’s comp plan is predicated on a strategy of centers and corridor
infill next to transportation corridors. Unfortunately, the City of Spokane has yet to develop strategies to implement this
plan. In fact, there has not been a single development within this strategy as it was envisioned in the plan since it was
first adopted 21-years ago.
Kendall Yards was NOT in one of these areas. Yet stands as a perfect example of how infill strategies can be possible. It
was developed as a “planned unit development” – and not part of one of the recognized centers.
42
I agree with former City Council member Ben Stuckart in that the city has failed to implement its urban development
regulations to develop any urbanized areas. This strategy does not work. As a result, we have a lot of undeveloped land
and missed housing opportunities. We need to change that. If we are committed to a plan, let’s implement it. If not,
then let’s change it. But right now, what we are doing is not working.
(Editor’s note: Commissioner French has called on the City of Spokane to give up some of its GMA housing allotments for
use in Airway Heights and Spokane Valley, with estimates the city has underbuilt GMA targets by 34,000 housing units it
had originally promised by the year 2026.)
43
Conclusions and Findings
The data is clear.
A bad as Spokane’s housing crisis stands, it may just be thebeginning. Every expert we convened shared the
same concern over policy and practices that are hampering housing development opportunities.
By failing to build the estimated 31,920 homes, the Spokane Region may have missed out on lost economic
opportunities, lost tax revenues and increasing environmental hazards from residents moving farther and
farther away from employment centers. Using the numbers provided by our experts, Spokane has missed out
on:
$6-billion dollars in wages and employment since 2010
$1.1-billion dollars in immediate and ongoing tax revenues
Additionally, each buyer who moves into Kootenai County and commutes to Spokane for work, shopping or
school adds an additional 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the air. (source: EPA) Already, the census
bureau estimates some 10,000 workers commute from Northern Idaho every day to work in the Spokane
region.
Spokane’s housing market is lacking, and its changing. It has created hardships and suffering for many.
We cannot fix this problem overnight. But we must get started.
Understanding the true extent of the problem is just the first step.
44
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date:May 18,2021 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply:consent old business new business public hearing
informationadmin. reportpending legislationexecutive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE:Events, Activities and Recreation in Phase 3 Covid-19
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:N/A.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:City Council approved the 2021Parks and Recreation
Department budget on December 8, 2020.June 16, 2020 Admin Report: COVID-19 Impact on Parks and
Recreation Summer Programs
BACKGROUND:No one could have predicted COVID-19 or its impact on the State of Washington. On
March 17, 2020 the City Councildeclared an emergency through passage of Resolution 20-005 which
authorized the City Manager to close certain City facilities, including the CenterPlace Regional Event
Center. In May of 2020 the Governor announced Washington’s Phased Approach plan and on May 22,
Phase 2 had begunfor Spokane County. Anticipating a possible Phase 3 last year, the Parks and
Recreation Department provided an update toCouncil on June 16, 2020 about potential revised
recreation programming should the County reachPhase 3. Ultimately the Department was not able to
offer its traditional arrayof Special Event Permits, FacilityReservations, or RecreationPrograms in 2020.
Alimited number of “essential trainings” were able to resume inside CenterPlace in the fall of 2020.
Fast-forward to January 11, 2021, the Governor replaced Washington’s original Phased Approach Plan
with the new “Healthy Washington Roadmap to Recovery” Plan with a regional approach to reopening
consisting of 2 phases withall regions beginning in Phase 1. On February 14, 2021,Spokane County
moved into Phase 2 of the new Roadmap to Recovery. Most recently, on March 22, 2021,the Governor
added a Phase 3 to the Roadmap to Recoveryand began providing specific guidelines for various
activities in Phase 3. Counties are individually evaluated every three weeks.Spokane County is currently
in Phase 3 and thenextevaluationis scheduled for May18, 2021.
The Spokane Regional Health District’s (SRHD)COVID-19 Guidance Event Planning Flowchartis a
comprehensive document with live links to assist citizens, event planners and businesses.
TheReopening Guidance for Businesses and Workerspage on the Governor’s website provides specific
requirements for variouskindsof activities.Parks and Recreation staff have been participating in regular
meetings of the SRHD’s Events and Venues Workgroup and the Washington Festivals and Events
Association (WFEA).While CenterPlace still remains closed to the general public, a broader range of
activities allowable under the Governor’s guidelines have begun to take place inside the facility and Parks
staff have resumed processing Facility Use Reservations and Special Event Applications.
Staff will be presenting anoverview of Events, Activities and Recreation Programs under the current and
ever-evolving Covid-19 guidelines in 2021.
OPTIONS:Council discussion.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:No recommended action at this time.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS:Anticipated expenditures will be within our existing 2021Parks and
Recreation Department budget.
STAFF CONTACT:John Bottelli,Parks,Recreation& Facilities Director;Carol Carter, CenterPlace
Coordinator; Tina Gregerson, Recreation Coordinator; Patty Bischoff, Administrative Assistant.
ATTACHMENTS:PowerPoint Presentation
DRAFT
ADVANCE AGENDA
as of May 13, 2021; 8:30 a.m.
Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative
To: Council & Staff
From: City Clerk, by direction of City Manager
Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings
May 25, 2021, Formal Meeting, 6:00 p.m. \[due Tue May 18\]
1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes)
2. Second Reading Ordinance 21-005 Title 24 CTA (2020-0004) Jenny Nickerson (no public comment) (10 min)
3. Second Reading Ordinance 21-006 Amending 2021 Budget Chelsie Taylor (no public comment) (10 minutes)
4. Motion Consideration, Mayoral Appointment, Spokane Housing Authority Mayor Wick (5 minutes)
5. Motion Consideration: Bid Award, Argonne/Montgomery Intersection Improvement-B. Helbig (5 minutes)
6. Admin Report: Potential Grant Opportunity, Pines/BNSF GSP Adam Jackson (10 minutes)
7. Admin Report: Urban Growth Area Update Mike Basinger (15 minutes)
8. Admin Report: Code Enforcement Program Jenny Nickerson (20 minutes)
9. Advance Agenda Mayor Wick (5 minutes)
10. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports \[*estimated meeting: 85 mins\]
June 1, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. \[due Tue May 25\]
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Resolution 21-001 Adopting Housing Action Plan Chaz Bates (no public comment) (10 minutes)
2. Motion Consideration, Bid Award, 0317 Appleway-Stormwater Bill Helbig (5 minutes)
3. Motion Consideration: Potential Grant Opportunity: Pines/BNSF GSP- Adam Jackson (5 minutes)
NON-ACTION ITEMS:
4. End of Legislative Session Update Briahna Murray (30 minutes)
5. Shoreline Master Plan - Chaz Bates (15 minutes)
6 Aquatics Update John Bottelli (10 minutes)
7. Capital Improvement Program Gloria Mantz (15 minutes)
8. Bridge Program Gloria Mantz (10 minutes)
9. Advance Agenda Mayor Wick (5 minutes)
\[*estimated meeting: 105 mins\]
June 8, 2021, Formal Meeting, 6:00 p.m. \[due Tue June 1\]
1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2022-2027 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program Adam Jackson (10 min)
2. Resolution 21-002 Adopting 2022-2027 Six Year TIP Adam Jackson (no public comment) (5 minutes)
3. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes)
4. First Reading Ordinance 21-007 Adopting Shoreline Master Plan Chaz Bates (10 minutes)
5. Admin Report: Boys & Girls Club Richard Hanlin (20 minutes)
6. Admin Report: Contamination Reduction and Outreach Plan (CROP) Henry Allen, M.Koudelka (20 min)
7. Admin Report: Advance Agenda Mayor Wick (5 minutes)
\[*estimated meeting: 75 mins\]
June 15, 2021, Budget Workshop 2022 Budget 8:30 am to approximately 3:00 pm
June 15, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Cancelled
AWC Conference: June 22-25 live and recorded webinars
June 22, 2021, Formal Meeting, 6:00 p.m. \[due Tue June 15\]
1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes)
2. Second Reading Ordinance 21-007 Adopting Shoreline Master Plan Chaz Bates (10 minutes)
3. Resolution 21-003 Adopting Contamination Reduction & Outreach Plan (CROP) H.Allen, M.Koudelka (10 min)
4. Admin Report: Advance Agenda Mayor Wick (5 minutes)
5. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports \[*estimated meeting: 30 mins\]
Draft Advance Agenda 5/13/2021 10:16:02 AM Page 1 of 2
June 29, 2021, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. \[due Tue June 22\]
1. Advance Agenda Mayor Wick (5 minutes)
July 6, 2021, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. \[due Tue June 29\]
Proclamation: July is Parks & Recreation Month
1. Advance Agenda Mayor Wick (5 minutes)
July 13, 2021, Formal Meeting, 6:00 p.m. \[due Tue July 6\]
1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes)
2. Admin Report: Council Goals & Priorities for Use of Lodging Tax Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes)
3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda Mayor Wick (5 minutes)
July 20, 2021, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. \[due Tue July 13\]
1. Advance Agenda Mayor Wick (5 minutes)
Spokane Valley State of the City: July 21, 2021
July 27, 2021, Formal Meeting, 6:00 p.m. \[due Tue July 20\]
1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes)
2. Motion Consideration: Council Goals & Priorities for Use of Lodging Tax Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes)
3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda Mayor Wick (5 minutes)
4. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports
Aug 3, 2021, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. \[due Tue July 27\]
1. Advance Agenda Mayor Wick (5 minutes)
Aug 10, 2021, Formal Meeting, 6:00 p.m. \[due Tue Aug 3\]
1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes)
2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda Mayor Wick (5 minutes)
Aug 17, 2021, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. \[due Tue Aug 10\]
1. Council 2022 Budget Goals Chelsie Taylor (15 minutes)
2. Advance Agenda Mayor Wick (5 minutes)
Aug 24, 2021, Formal Meeting, 6:00 p.m. \[due Tue Aug 17\]
1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes)
2. Admin Report: 2022 Budget-Estimated Revenues & Expenditures Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes)
3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda Mayor Wick (5 minutes)
4. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports
Aug 31, 2021, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. \[due Tue Aug 24\]
1. Advance Agenda Mayor Wick (5 minutes)
*time for public or Council comments not included
OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS:
Appleway Trail Amenities Residency
Arts Council Sculpture Presentations Ridgemont Area Traffic
Artwork & Metal Boxes St. Illumination (owners, cost, location)
Consolidated Homeless Grant St. O&M Pavement Preservation
Core Beliefs Resolution TPA
Mirabeau Park Forestry Mgmt. Union Gospel Mission re Homelessness
No Parking Zones Vehicle Wgt Infrastructure Impact
Park Lighting Water Districts & Green Space
PFD Presentation Way Finding Signs
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date:May 18, 2021Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply:consentold businessnew businesspublic hearing
informationadmin. reportpending legislationexecutive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE:Information only -Spokane Regional Law and Justice Council (SRLJC)
monthly meeting report for May, 2021.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:RCW 72.09.300.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:May 4, 2021, Councilissuance of a letter to the Board of
County Commissioners supporting two committee approach if changes are to be made to the existing
SRLJC structure and membership.
BACKGROUND:The SRLJC was formed in early 2014 for various reasons,including to meet statutory
requirements, and to provide a forum for regional entities to meet and discuss the criminal justice system
and how it could be improved. The City of Spokane Valley was not given a designated position on the
SRLJC, and instead shares one seat with the other municipalities in Spokane County (with the exception of
the City of Spokane, which has fourrepresentatives).Then-City Manager Mike Jackson sent letters to all
of the other jurisdictions to ask whether they had any interestin filling the representative position. After
not receiving any comments or suggestions, then-City Manager Jackson appointed City Attorney Cary
Driskell as the representative of the County’s municipalities (minus Spokane), a position he has filled since
early 2015.The appointment was based on his knowledge of the criminal justice system.
The SRLJC generally meets over lunch on the second Wednesday of each month, although meetings are
cancelled occasionally if there are not sufficient agenda items, or if SRLJC members are likely to be absent.
After each meeting, Mr. Driskell sends a summary of the meeting events and discussions to each of the
represented jurisdictions, which goesto the Mayor, City Manager/Administrator, or City Clerk as requested
by the entity.
At the May 4, Council meeting, a Spokane Valley Councilmember noted that they were unclear about what
has been happening at the monthly SRLJC meetings.Given this, City Manager Calhoun determined that a
copy of the monthly meeting summary wouldbe put into the Council packet as an informational item until
such time as Council requested otherwise. This would provide additional guidance to Council on what the
current topic issues are for the SRLJC. If a summary report is not provided for a particular month, Council
should assume a meeting was not held. If there is something mentioned in the report that Council would
like additional information on, staff can provide it.
OPTIONS:Not applicable.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:Not applicable.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS:Not applicable.
STAFF CONTACT:Cary Driskell, City Attorney.
___________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:SRLJC May 2021 meeting summary report.
OFFICE OFTHECITY ATTORNEY
CARY P. DRISKELL -CITY ATTORNEY
10210EastSprague AvenueSpokane Valley,WA 99206
509.720.5105Fax: 509.720.5095cityattorney@spokanevalley.org
May 12, 2021
http://www.spokanecounty.org/872/Spokane-Regional-Law-Justice-Council
To:Represented communities in Spokane County
From:Cary Driskell, Spokane Valley City Attorney, acting in representative capacityfor
municipal legislative entities (except Spokane)on Spokane Regional Law & Justice Council.
Re:Monthly SRLJC meeting on May 12, 2021.
1.Welcome/introductions.TheSRLJC meeting washeld by Zoom.
2.Approval of the April 14, 2021 meeting Minutes.The minutes from April 14, 2021 were
approved.
3.Discussion of SRLJC organizational structure. This was a discussion continued from the March
and Aprilmeetings, and focused on the proposed resolution by Spokane County Prosecutor Larry
Haskell that would reduce the SRLJC from its current size and duties to those set forth in RCW
72.09.300. A copy of a draft resolution for proposed adoption by the Board of County
Commissioners is attached as well. Among the changes would be to have one representative for
all cities and towns in Spokane County instead of the current four, and would remove the Public
Defender, along with other representatives.
At the April meeting,a motion was made and seconded to refer to the Strategic Planning Committee
for discussion and recommendation of options for a new or revised committee structure in lieu of
the SRLJC, and to provide for potential alternatives to Prosecutor Haskell’s proposal.Strategic
Planning held a Special Meeting on April 28 to discussion options, and request that the Chair and
Vice-Chair bring back a recommendation based on those discussions. Atthe May 10 Regular
Meeting, Strategic Planningapproved a recommendation to the SRLJC.
There was considerable discussion at the May 12 SRLJCmeeting about this issue,after which the
SRLJC voted 11-7 to approve the recommendation and forward it to the BoCC.(A copy of the
recommendation is attached for review)This will only be a recommendation, but represents an
opinion of a majority of the SRLJC members that there is value in continuing to have a forum to
discuss these criminal justice issues.
4.Update on Mental Health Crisis Stabilization Facility–Pioneer Behavioral Health, which has a
contract with Spokane County to operate this new facility, gave an update on how they expect the
facility to operate. The facility is anticipatedto open in June 2021. Criminal Justice Administrator
Maggie Yates said the PowerPoint presentation from Pioneer will be available soon on the SRLJC
website for more information.
Information was also presented on the behavioral health co-deployed teams (team of one law
enforcement officer and a mental health professional), and how they are being deployed to reduce
Page 1of 2
use-of-force situations to keep both the public and officers safer. These interactions also provide
an excellent opportunity to talk with those in need, and to work to connect them with needed
services.There are currently eight co-deployed teams in the region, andPioneer statedthere is a
need for more teams. There are more funds available this year for potential expansion of the
program, and Pioneer is in the process of applying for additional funding for this purpose.
Undersheriff Kittilstved echoed the value of the program,agreedthat additional teams are needed,
and also stated that the region needs to think about how we will respond if the grant funding goes
away, urging the leaders to commit to finding a way to keep this program going.
5.Adjourn.
*As previously noted,you can sign up for the SRLJC NewsFlash by clicking on the following link
http://www.spokanecounty.org/list.aspxand scrolling down to locate the Spokane Regional Law
and Justice Newsunder “News Flash” to sign upfor notifications and updates.
You can also see “Latest News” at: www.spokanecounty.org/srljc
Page 2of 2
NO.______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF MODIFYING )
SPOKANE COUNTY RESOLUTION )
NOS. 14-0392, 15-0849, 17-0259, 18-0209)R E S O L U T I O N
and 18-0912WHICH RE-ESTABLISHED )
THE SPOKANE COUNTY LAW AND )
JUSTICE COUNCIL )
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the RCW 36.32.120(6), the Board of County
Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington (sometimes hereinafterreferred to as the “Board”
or “Board of County Commissioners”) has the care of County property and the management of
County funds and business; and
WHEREAS,pursuant to RCW 72.09.300,every county legislative authority shallby
resolutionorordinance establish a local law and justice council; and
WHEREAS,pursuant to RCW 72.09.300(1), the county legislative authority shall
determine the size and composition of the law and justice council, which shall include certain
individualsin identified positions;and
WHEREAS,in 2013 the Spokane Regional Criminal Justice Commission, consisting of
the Honorable James Murphy (Retired), James McDevitt, and Phillip Wetzel, authored a document
entitled “A BLUEPRINT FOR REFORM” which document was structured to allow an overview
of the current criminal justice system operations, acknowledgment of work to date, followed by a
set of recommendations for governance, reform and research; and
WHEREAS,Recommendation 5.1(2) of A BLUEPRINT FOR REFORM provided as
follows:
Recommendation 5.1(2) Re-establish the Law and Justice Coordinating Committee and
supporting workgroups
; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 36.32.120(6),RCW 72.09.300and
Recommendation 5.1(2) of A BLUEPRINT FOR REFORM, the Board of County Commissioners
re-established the Law and Justice Council under Spokane County Resolution No. 14-0392and
further modified the composition/provisions of Resolution No. 14-0392 under Resolution Nos. 15-
0849, 17-0259, 18-0209 and 18-0912; and
WHEREAS,pursuant to the provisions of Resolution No. 19-1347, the Board of County
Commissioners reconvened the Spokane Regional Criminal Justice Commission to provide a
Page 1of 8
status report on the recommendations set forth in A BLUEPRINT FOR REFORM; and
WHEREAS, consistent with Resolution No. 19-1347, the Spokane Regional Criminal
Justice Commission authoreda document entitled “THE BLUEPRINT FOR REFORM –STATUS
REPORT (October 2020)”. The STATUS REPORT document addressed Recommendation 5.1(2)
of A BLUEPRINT FOR REFORMas follows:
5.1(2) Re-establish the Law and Justice Coordinating Committee &Supporting
Workgroups.
The Spokane Regional Law & Justice Council (SRLJC) and its committees were
reestablished shortly after the Blueprint’s publication. Since then, the Council has clarified
that it is strictly an advisory body (consistent with RCW 72.09,300 and SRLJC bylaws)
and cannot manage, direct, or implement initiatives. Although we commend the efforts of
the SRLJC, the body has struggled to live up to its original charge due to the unwieldy
number of participants, internal disagreement over the Council’s purpose and authority,
and ongoing public scrutiny. As a result, local jurisdictions have established and disbanded
a slew of other committees, task forces, and working groups over the past several years in
order to manage and move projects forward.In many cases, such committees have been
productive, but in other cases, they have thwarted centralized communication, planning,
and public transparency. Moving forward, the CJC recommends shifting or replacing the
SRLJC with a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee, as endorsed by the National
Institute of Corrections.
Bottom Line: The SRLJC struggled to grow into an agile and effective working group
necessary to catalyze change. County Commissioners and other officials should
seriously consider replacing the SRLJC with a Criminal Justice Coordinating
Committee.
; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has considered the recommendation of
the Spokane Regional Criminal Justice Commission with respect to replacing the SRLJC with a
Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee as endorsed by the National Institute of Corrections.
The Board recognizes that if they establishment of a CriminalJustice Coordinating Committee as
endorsed by the National Institute of Corrections under a code county, such as Spokane County,
such Coordinating Committee would only be able to provide recommendations to elected officials
or political subdivisions involved in the criminal justice system. As such, instead of duplicating
the efforts of the SRLJC by the creation of a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee, the Board
of County Commissioners believes that it is more appropriate to address the Regional Criminal
Justice Commission’srecommendation regarding the “unwieldy number of participants” in the
SRLJC byreducing membership is the SRLJC thus fostering a stronger approach to addressing the
charge of the SRLJC.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEDby the Board of County Commissioners of
Spokane County, Washington, pursuant to the provisions of:
Page 2of 8
(1)RCW 36.32.120(6),
(2)RCW 72.09.300,and
(3)“THE BLUEPRINT FOR REFORM –STATUS REPORT (October 2020)”-“5.1(2)
Re-establish the Law and Justice Coordinating Committee & Supporting Workgroups”
that the Board of County Commissioners does hereby modify Spokane County Resolution No. 14-
0392,as modified by Resolution Nos. 15-0849, 17-0259, 18-0209 and 18-0912as more
particularly set forth in Attachment "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The
provisions of this Resolution shall supersede and replace Spokane County Resolution No. 14-0392
as modified by Resolution Nos. 15-0849, 17-0259, 18-0209 and 18-0912.All Committees and
Workgroups established under the superseded and replaced Resolutions shall cease unless
reestablished by the Board of County Commissioners upon its own action or the request of the
Committee as provided for in Section 8 of Attachment “A”.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVEDby the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane
County, Washington, that this Resolution shall be effective as of the date passed and adopted by
the Board of County Commissioners.
PASSED AND ADOPTEDthis ______ day of _______________, 2021.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
___________________________________
JOSH KERNS, Chair
ATTEST:___________________________________
MARY L. KUNEY,Vice-Chair
_____________________________________________________________
Ginna VasquezAL FRENCH, Commissioner
Clerk of the Board
Page 3of 8
ATTACHMENT “A”
(Underlinedhighlighted language added, lined out highlighted language deleted.)
Section 1:ESTABLISHMENT OFTHESPOKANE COUNTY LAW AND
JUSTICE COUNCIL ANDADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COMMITTEE
There is created a boardlocal law and justice council, to be known as the SpokaneCountyRegional
Law and Justice Council,Criminal Justice Coordinating Committeehereinafter referred to as the
“Council”“Committee”,which shall supersede and repeal all prior measures regarding bodies
established pursuant to RCW 72.09.300.
The CouncilCommitteeshall have the following compositionas(the 13 italicized members are
required byRCW 72.09.300):
a.Three (3)members of theSpokane CountyBoard of County Commissioners selected by
the Board of County Commissioners;
b.Spokane County Sheriff;
c.A representative of Municipal Police Departments to be selected by the Municipal Police
Departments;
d.Spokane County Prosecutor;
e.A representative of Municipal Prosecutors to be selected by the Municipal Prosecutors;
f.City of Spokane Council Member to be selected by the Spokane City Council;
g.Arepresentative of the City Legislative Authorities, other than the City of Spokane,to be
selected by the City Legislative Authorities;
h.A representative of Spokane County Superior Court to be selected by the Spokane County
Superior Court;
i.A representative of Spokane County Juvenile Courtto be selected by the Spokane County
Superior Court;
j.A representative of Spokane County District Court to be selected by the Spokane County
District Court;
k.A representative of Municipal Courts to be selected by the Municipal Courts;
l.Spokane County Jail Administrator (Detention Services Director);
m.Spokane County Superior Court Clerk;
n.Spokane County Risk Manager;and
o.Secretary of Corrections.;
p.Spokane County Public Defender;
q.City of Spokane Mayor;
r.Spokane County Pre-Trial Services Director;
Page 4of 8
s.A representative of the Spokane Municipal Court to be selected by the Spokane Municipal
Court
t.City of Spokane Chief of Police;
u.Four (4) at-large members representing the general population, to be selected by the Board
of County Commissioners. The Council Strategic Planning Workgroupwill be responsible
for generating an updated list of regional criminal justice reform priorities every time a
vacancy occurs in anyone of the four (4) at-large members.This updated list will be shared
with the Board of County Commissioners prior to posting any vacancies in anyone of the
four (4) at-large memberpositions; and
v.Such other member(s) as the Board of County Commissioners may hereinafter determine
to be beneficial.
Any elected member of the Committee who is a representative of his/her body shall be rotated on
an annual basis within its membership. Provided, any representative may waive his/her right to
be a member of the Committee in any rotation without waiving his/her right to be a member of the
Committeein any future rotation.
Any member of the CouncilCommitteemay in writing appoint a designee.A designee from a
representative body shall be from the representative body.All designees shall be speaking
representatives on behalf of the member and avoting member onany matter coming before the
CouncilCommittee.
There is also created a Spokane Regional Law and Justice Administrative Committee, herein after
referred to as the “Administrative Committee”,which will have up to a maximum of seven (7)
members.
The Administrative Committee shall be members of the Council and have the following
composition:
a.The two (2) members of the Spokane County Board of County Commissioner;
b.City of Spokane Mayor;
c.City of Spokane Council Member to be selected by the Spokane City Council;
d.A representative of Spokane County Superior Court; and
e.Up to two (2) additional members.
The role of the Administrative Committee is to (1) receive the process, policy, administrative and
budgetary recommendations of the Council, (2) analyze, authorize and implement resource
allocationsin alignment with those prioritiesand (3) advocate for priority reforms recommended
by the Council members and the community at large.
Section 2:PURPOSE
The purpose of the CouncilCommitteeis to provide a permanent on-going forum and structure to
coordinate and enhance the administration of justicein Spokane County.
Page 5of 8
Section 3:TERMS
Theterms of the members of the Council andAdministrativeCommitteewho are not designated
by a selecting authority,electedshall run as long as such individual retains the prerequisite elected
position. The terms of members of the Counciland AdministrativeCommitteewho are designated
by a selecting authorityshallbe rotated as provided for in Section 1 above.renewed by the
selecting authority every four (4)years.Provided, further, the terms of the (4) four at-large
members, except as provided for herein after, shall be (4) four years and staggered so that a new
at-large member is appointed every year. The initial terms of at-large members shall be as follows;
at-large member Position No.1, (4) four years terminating in October 2019; at-large member
Position No. 2, (4) four years terminating in October 2020; at large member Position No. 3, (4)
four years terminating October 2021, at large member Position No.4, (5) years terminating in
October 2022. The clerk of the Board of County Commissioners shall by lot determine which
individual appointed to fill member Position No. 3 and member Position No. 4. After 2022, the
member appointed to fill at-large member Position No. 4, shall have a (4) four-year term.The
selecting authority has the ability to designate a different representative provided that the
underlying qualifications for the position are satisfied.Members may be removed by their
selectingauthority. Except in the case of removal, each member shall continue to serve until a
successor has been appointed. Any non-elected official member shall have a four-year term.
Section4:COMPENSATION
Members of the Council and AdministrativeCommitteeshall serve without compensation and/or
per diem of any kind or nature whatsoever, including compensation for travel to and from the usual
places of business to the place of a regular or special meeting of the CouncilorAdministrative
Committee.
Section 5:MEETINGS, RULES AND REGULATIONS
The Council and AdministrativeCommitteeshall hold meetings as deemed necessary by the
Chairperson or a majority of the CouncilorAdministrativeCommittee.respectively.Provided,
however, the Committee shall meet at a minimum twice annually.The Council and Administrative
Committeemay adopt rules and regulations governing the transaction of business.The Council
and AdministrativeCommitteeshall keep public records of all actions as may be required by
applicablelaws.All meetingsof the Council and Administrative Committeeshall be open and
accessible to the public as provided by law.
A quorum for doing business by the Council or AdministrativeCommitteeshall be established by
the presence of at least 50% of the members or their authorized designeeseither in person or
telephonically.
Section 6:OFFICERS
The chairpersonof the CouncilCommitteeshall be selectedaSpokane County Board of County
Commissioner memberas designatedby the Board of County CommissionersCommitteeon an
Page 6of 8
annual basis in Januaryby a simple majority vote of a quorum of voting members.
The vice chairperson of the CouncilCommitteeshall be selected by the CouncilCommitteeon an
annual basis in January by a simple majority vote of theaquorum of the voting members.
The chairperson and vice chairperson of the Administrative Committee shall be selected by the
Administrative Committee on an annual basis in January by a simple majority vote of a quorum
of the voting members.
The chairperson(s)shall preside over all meetings, and in the absence of such chairperson, the
vice-chairpersonshall preside.
Section 7:MISSION STATEMENT
The mission of the CouncilCommitteeisto create and sustain a cost-effective regional criminal
justice system that builds a healthyand strong community by fostering the best possible outcomes
for thecommunitywhich are consistent with the law and community objectives of public safety,
accountability, just punishment,appropriatetreatment and increase public awareness so as to,
reducingreducerecidivism and increasingincreasesystem collaboration.
Section8:POWERS AND DUTIES
The CouncilCommittee, in conjunction with carrying out the above mission statement, shall make
recommendations to the appropriate elected officials and the Administrative Committeeon the
following issues:
(a)Maximizing local resources including personnel and facilities, reducing duplication of
services, and sharing resources between local and state government in order to accomplish
local efficiencies without diminishing effectiveness;
(b)Reviewing data and reports with a goal of ensuring that departments are reducing
recidivism, increasing program completion, engaged in more efficient practices, generating
cost savings, expediting cases when appropriate, and contributing to a reduction in crime;
(c)Jail management;
(d)Mechanisms for communication of information about offenders, including the feasibility
of shared access to databases; and
(e)Partnerships between the department and local community policing and supervision
programs to facilitate supervision of offenders under the respective jurisdictions of each
and timely respondingto an offender’s failure to comply with the terms of supervision.;
and
(f)Developing a Local Law and Justice Plan for Spokane County. The Council shall design
the elements and scope of the Plan, subject to final approval by theSpokane County Board
of County Commissioners. The general intent of the Plan shall include seeking means to
maximize local resources, reduce duplication of services, and share resources between
local and state government.
Page 7of 8
The CouncilBoard of County Commissionerson request of theCommittee,or on its own action
may establish temporary advisorywork groups and/orsubcommittees to assist the Committeein
carrying out its powers and dutiesas outlined above.
The CouncilCommitteehas no authority to appropriate / expend any moneys or execute any
agreements.
STAFF SUPPORT
Section9:
Spokane County shall provide staff support for the Council and AdministrativeCommittee as is
deemed necessary.
Page 8of 8
Recommendation from Strategic Planning Committee to the Spokane Regional Law and
Justice Council regarding organizational structure and membership of the SRLJC.
On April 14, 2021, the SRLJC by affirmative motion tasked the Strategic Planning Committee
with analyzing Prosecutor Haskell’s proposed resolution to change the assigned tasks and
membership of the SRLJC.
On April 28, 2021, Strategic Planning held a special meeting to discussthis issue. As a result of
that meeting, a request was made for the Chair and Vice-Chair to draft a recommendation for
considerationby Strategic Planning onMay 10, 2021, which is anticipated to be ready for Strategic
Planning to make a recommendation to give the SRLJC at the May 12, 2021 meeting.
Followingdiscussion (seeminutes of April 28, 2021 meeting, attached), Strategic Planning
recommended that a two-entityapproach be utilized:
The first is a committee, required by RCW 72.09.300, which could function as proposed by
Prosecutor Haskell in his resolution, which conforms closely tothe requirements of thestatute.A
recommendation was made to amend the draft resolution so consideration of data is included again.
Form asecond entity as a councilpursuant to RCW 39.34.180, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, the
terms of which would be negotiated by the regional jurisdictional and criminal justice partners.
The Criminal Justice Commission (CJC) recommended considering the application of the National
Institute for Corrections recommendations on Criminal Justice CoordinatingCommittees, which
identifies interlocal agreement as the preferred approach.
If a second entityis organized by interlocal agreement, Strategic Planning suggested several
concepts that should be considered for inclusion in the new council:
1.Robust community participation at every level is crucial, including voting privilegesin
committees and at the main council;
2.In order to get the council moving quickly, draft an initial interlocal agreement that forms
the council largely along the current structural frameworkof the SRLJC, which can then
be modified later if necessary. Forming this new council should occur prior to dissolving
the SRLJC as it exists today;
3.Use astrong committee structure where the bulk ofthe work and recommendations are
done, which shouldrefocus the work effort and should help make the entity more
productive;
4. Determine if the parties to the interlocal can and will grant at least some authority to
make the council more than just a recommending body;
5. Determine if the council should have some separate budget (will depend on duties);
6. Should have an administrative or executive committee to set agendas as a group;and
7.In determining voting membership, focus on electedofficialsand system professionals
who have knowledge/desire/ability to impact the system.