Spokane Neighborhoods Community Assembly

August 4, 2016 Community Assembly Meeting Agenda Page 1 of 2

Spokane Neighborhoods Community Assembly

“Provide a vehicle to empower Neighborhood Councils’ participation in government”

Meeting Agenda for Thursday August 4, 2016

5:30 to 8:05 p.m. – West Central Community Center, 1603 N Belt

Proposed Agenda Subject to Change

Please bring the following items:

*Community Assembly Minutes: July 2016

AGENDA ITEM Presenter Time

Action Page No.

Introductions Facilitator 3 min–5:30

Proposed Agenda ( incl. Core Values and Purpose) Facilitator 2 min–5:33 Approve 1

Approve/Amend Minutes ▪ July 2016

Facilitator 5 min–5:35 Approve

5

OPEN FORUM

Reports/Updates/Announcements Please Sign Up to Speak! 5 min-5:40

LEGISLATIVE AGENDA

City Council ▪ Update

Councilmember 5 min-5:45 Oral Report

Admin ▪ August Picnic ▪ Joint CA/CC – 8/31/16

Tina Luerssen 5 min-5:50 Oral & Written Report

12

ONS/Code Enforcement ▪ Update

Staff 5 min-5:55 Presentation/ Q&A

CHHS ▪ 2017 CDBG Allocations

Dawn Kinder 30 min-6:00 Presentation/ Q&A

Design Review Board ▪ Update

Omar Akkari and Julie Neff 15 min-6:30 Presentation/ Q&A

Budget New Committee Member Request

Event Advertising

Andy Hoye 10 min-6:45 Presentation/ Q&A/Vote

Retreat ▪ Committee Formation ▪ Ideas

Jay Cousins 10 min-6:55 Presentation/ Q&A/Vote

Mayor’s Housing Task Force ▪ Update

Alicia Ayars 15 min-7:05 Presentation/ Q&A

Public Safety ▪ Long-term Rental Stakeholder Group

Julie Banks 30 min-7:20 Recommendation/ Vote

CA Roundtable CA Reps 15 min-7:50 Discussion

OTHER WRITTEN REPORTS

Pedestrian, Transportation & Traffic (PeTT) Paul Kropp Written Report 14

Liaison Paul Kropp Written Report 19

Plan Commission Liaison Greg Francis Written Report 20

Design Review Board Liaison Colleen Gardner Written Report 22

Building Stronger Neighborhoods (BSN) Tina Luerssen Written Report 23

CA/Community Development Kathryn Alexander Written Report 25

CA BBQ – August 14th Tina Luerssen Written Report 26

CA Master Calendar Kathryn Alexander Written Report 27

* IF YOU CAN’T MAKE THE MEETING, PLEASE SEND YOUR ALTERNATE!!!! *

1

August 4, 2016 Community Assembly Meeting Agenda Page 2 of 2

UPCOMING IMPORTANT MEETING DATES

August 18: Land Use, West Central Community Center, 1603 N Belt, 5pm August 22: Building Stronger Neighborhoods, Sinto Senior Center, 1124 W Sinto, 12pm August 23: CA Administrative Committee (agenda item requests due. Please submit all written material to

be included in packets two days prior to CA meeting date), ONS Office, 6Th Floor, City Hall, 4:30pm August 23: Pedestrian, Transportation & Traffic (PeTT), West Central Comm. Ctr, 1603 N Belt, 6pm

August 31: Joint CA/City Council, East Central Community Center, 500 S. Stone, September 1: Community Assembly, West Central Community Center, 1603 N Belt, 5:30pm

MEETING TIMETABLE PROTOCOL

In response to a growing concern for time constraints the Administrative Committee has agreed upon the

following meeting guidelines as a means of adhering to the Agenda Timetable:

1. When a presenter has one minute left in the time allotted the facilitator will raise a yellow pennant and

indicate a verbal notice.

a. Should any Neighborhood Representative wish to extend the time of the presentation or

comment/question period they may immediately “Move to extend the time by (1) to (5) minutes”.

b. An immediate call will be made for a show of hands in support of the extension of time. If a

majority of 50% plus 1 is presented the time will be reset by the amount of time requested.

c. Extensions will be limited to (2) two or until a request fails to show a majority approval. After

(2) two extensions, 1) if a motion is on the table, the facilitator will call for a vote on the open

motion to either a) approve or not approve, or b) to table the discussion; 2) if there is no motion

on the table, a request may be made to either (1) reschedule presenter to a later meeting, or (2)

ask presenter to stay and finish at the end of the agenda.

2. When the allotted time has expired, a red pennant and verbal notice will be issued.

Administrative Committee

COMMUNITY ASSEMBLY LIAISONS & REPS (Draft)

Citizens Transportation Advisory Board (PeTT): Jim Bakke, 466-4285, [email protected]

Community, Housing, & Human Services Board: Fran Papenleur, 326-2502, [email protected]

Design Review Board: Colleen Gardner, 535-5052, [email protected]

Plan Commission: Greg Francis, [email protected]

Plan Commission Transportation Advisory Committee (PeTT): Kathy Miotke, 467-2760,

[email protected] and Charles Hansen (alternate), 487-8462, [email protected]

Urban Forestry: Carol Bryan, 466-1390, [email protected]

2

mailto:[email protected]







a. CA Rules of Order:

i. To speak at a meeting, a person must be recognized by the

facilitator only one person can be recognized at a time. Each

speaker has one minute. When all who wish to speak have been

allowed their time, the rotation may begin again.

ii. When a proposal for action is made, open discussion will occur

before a motion is formed by the group

iii. As part of the final time extension request, the Facilitator will

request a show of hands by the representatives at the table to

indicate which of the following actions the group wants to take.

1. End discussion and move into forming the motion and

voting.

2. Further Discussion

3. Table discussion with direction

a. Request time to continue discussion at next CA

meeting.

b. Request additional information from staff or CA

Committee

c. Send back to CA Committee for additional work

Open Discussion

Facilitator Show of Hands for One of the

Following Actions

1. End Discussion Form Motion/Vote

2. Further

Discussion

3. Table With Direction To...

.TTo...

C. Back to Comm for Addtnl. Work

B. Additional Info from Staff or Comm

A. Continue at Next CA

A. CA Forms the Motion

B. Make Motion/2nd

C. Vote

As Part of the Final Extension

Motions From the Floor Are Not Allowed

Proposal for Action

3

Community Assembly Core Values and Purpose

CORE PURPOSE:

Provide a vehicle to empower neighborhood councils’ participation in government.

BHAG:

Become an equal partner in local government.

(This will be further expounded upon in the Vivid Description. What does this mean to you?)

CORE VALUES:

Common Good: Working towards mutual solutions based on diverse and unique perspectives.

Alignment: Bringing together the independent neighborhood councils to act collectively.

Initiative: Being proactive in taking timely, practical action.

Balance of Power: Being a transparent, representative body giving power to citizens' voices.

VIVID DESCRIPTION:

The Community Assembly fulfils its purpose, achieves its goals, and stays true to its core values by its

members engaging each other and the community with honest communication and having transparent

actions in all of its dealings. Community Assembly representatives are knowledgeable and committed

to serving their neighborhood and their city as liaisons and leaders.

The Community Assembly initiates and is actively involved early and often in the conception, adoption

and implementation of local policy changes and projects. The administration and elected officials bring

ideas to the Community Assembly in the forming stages for vetting, input and participation. The

Community Assembly is a valuable partner to these officials and neighborhoods in creating quality policy

& legislation for the common good.

The Community Assembly stimulates participation in civic life among our residents. Citizens that run for

political office will believe in the importance of partnering with the Community Assembly and

neighborhood councils. Those candidates’ active participation and history with neighborhoods

contributes to their success, enhancing successful partnerships between the Community Assembly and

local government.

4

1

Community Assembly Minutes

July 7, 2016

1. Proposed Agenda

a. Approved

2. Approve Amended Minutes

a. Proposed amendment (Kathryn Alexander, Bemiss - budget committee numbers need to

change from $20,000 to $25,000.

i. Approved as amended

3. Open Forum

a. Garry Pollard, Riverside

i. Community assembly handbook – congratulations to the CA, very impressed.

Trying for years to get something like this on the books.

b. Kathryn Alexander, Bemiss

i. 20 year anniversary of CA, congratulations on all the hard work over the

years.

ii. Bemiss is having concerts this summer, every other week starting July 15th at

Hayes Park.

4. Comp Plan update - Opportunities for engagement

a. Lisa Keys, Director of City Planning

i. https://static.spokanecity.org/documents/neighborhoods/getinvolved/agend

as/2016/07/community-assembly-agenda-packet-2016-07-18.pdf

ii. Comprehensive plan background

1. Comp Plan was first adopted in 2001

2. Last major update was in 2006

3. Review process for this update began in 2013

4. Update must be adopted by June, 2017

iii. Early Outreach Efforts – 2013

1. Public Participation Plan – adopted by City Council (Revised in 2014

& 2016).

2. Website

3. Plan Commission and City Council updates.

4. Community Assembly updates and requests for focus group

volunteers.

5. Council District Neighborhood Outreach Committee.

6. 3 Council District Meetings.

7. Plan Commission Open House.

iv. Early Outreach – Policy Focus Groups

1. Streamlined chapters and eliminated redundancies.

2. Added new policies if group found ‘gaps’.

3. Re-arranged sections – to enable better flow.

5

https://static.spokanecity.org/documents/neighborhoods/getinvolved/agendas/2016/07/community-assembly-agenda-packet-2016-07-18.pdf


2

v. Early Outreach Efforts – 2014-2015

1. Neighborhood Profiles. Purpose, to highlight each neighborhoods

assets for use by visitors, developers, business.

2. Staff Developed instruction booklet and CD’s for neighborhoods to

use when writing profiles and worked with CA.

3. Interactive website let people pin icons to places of interest in their

neighborhoods.

vi. What is different in this update?

1. Address regulatory changes – GMA.

2. Streamlined for improved readability.

3. Integrated capital facilities – LINK Spokane.

4. Neighborhood Profiles.

5. Implementation.

vii. Implementation Chapter

1. Future strategic actions for implantation will be included in the

update.

2. Staff will gather ideas over the remainder of this year on what items

should be included in the list of future work.

viii. PC First Review Workshop

3. April 27th – Overview

4. May 25th – Profiles and Neighborhoods

5. June 8th – Introduction and Land Use

6. June 22nd – Natural Environment; Leadership, Governance, and

Citizenship; Urban Design/Historic Preservation.

7. July 13th – Economic Development; Social Health; Parks, Recreation,

Open Spaces.

8. August 10th – Housing; Capital Facilities and Utilities.

9. September 14th – Transportation (LINK Spokane).

https://my.spokanecity.org/projects/link-spokane/

ix. How to Read the Revisions

1. The ‘track changes’ version has new additions that have been moved

– underlined in red.

2. Items that have been removed or moved to another location are

crossed out in Red.

3. Red tent boxes contain comments for discussion – will not be part of

the final document.

4. Green text boxes contain items to be included in new chapter 2.

5. If no comment box exists – the changes are minor.

6. The second version is a ‘clean’ reformatted copy.

x. September Public Open Houses

1. Four Public Open Houses – held in each Council District, plus

downtown.

6

https://my.spokanecity.org/projects/link-spokane/

3

2. Virtual Open House through the month of September.

xi. Next Steps

1. Questions and comments – send to:

[email protected]

2. Come back to next meeting to discuss public participation plan.

5. City council –– City Update

a. Councilman Breean Beggs & Councilwomen Karen Stratton

i. Legislative priorities – first meeting a couple weeks ago, defined list of 5

items - top priorities. Houses on maple and Boone – moving – restored and

being moved back.

ii. Next week advisory committee on Monroe – sit down w council women

Mumm to discuss this further.

iii. New Police Chief Candidates

1. Down to 3 selected candidates

2. July 20th – public panel at city hall going almost all day, candidates

will rotate around.

3. Contact HR if you want to be a part of this process.

iv. Traffic calming – met last week, and reviewed all Neighborhood Council

applications. Final decisions should be getting back to the Neighborhood

Councils soon.

v. Heather Trautman and Breean Beggs – discussing neighborhoods and parking

to come up with a standard way to have community engagement in this

process.

6. Admin committee – Updates, August Picnic and December Meeting

a. Tina Luerssen, Grandview/Thorpe

i. No CACC in July, next meeting – August 31st

ii. August Picnic – social gathering to have fun together. Need a date and location.

Vote on date and location for August Picnic:

Does the group want to have picnic at mission or Manito Park?

Mission park: 9 vote yes

Manito Park: 9 vote yes

Sunday - Aug 14th or Aug 21st

14th: 12 vote yes

21st: 3 vote yes

Time frame: 4pm-6:30pm or 6pm-8:30pm?

4pm: 14 vote yes

7


4

6pm: 1 vote yes

Final Vote: Manito Park on the 14th at 4pm

1. Wanting to do recognition awards – if you have suggestions please

contact Tina.

2. Do we want to make this event a plus one or bring family? Restrict

young family members and allow spouses? If you have thoughts on

this please contact Tina.

iii. December meeting: awards banquet and potluck – do we want to continue

to do this?

Vote:

Traditional: hour meeting and potluck – vote yes: 11

Nontraditional: complete business meeting - vote yes: 3

7. ONS & Code Enforcement – Update

a. Heather Trautman, Director of Office of Neighborhood Services and Code Enforcement

i. https://static.spokanecity.org/documents/neighborhoods/getinvolved/agen

das/2016/07/community-assembly-agenda-packet-2016-07-18.pdf

ii. Dawn Kinder, Director of CHHS – CDBG allocations

1. Estimated allocation figures have changed slightly– going to effect

the NC allocations.

2. CACD Committee has been informed of this change.

3. If you have questions, please send them to Heather Trautman.

4. Bring this back in August for further discussion.

8. Land Use – 2016 Proposed Comp Plan Amendments

a. Greg Francis, Rockwood

i. https://static.spokanecity.org/documents/neighborhoods/getinvolved/agend

as/2016/07/community-assembly-agenda-packet-2016-07-18.pdf

ii. Three proposed amendments

1. All three are proposed rezoning

2. Two generally non-contentious (QueenB & Avista)

3. One contentious and much larger (Morningside)

4. Land Use Committee is recommending action on Morningside in

support of impacted neighborhoods.

iii. Key guiding principles to consider

1. Honor the community’s long term investment in the comp plan

2. Encourage development that will enable whole community to

prosper

3. Proposed changes must result in a net benefit to the general public

iv. Morningside – Traffic Factors

8





5

1. Substantial traffic issues in this area already

2. Near failure levels by 2021 if rezone and project are approved

3. Indian Trail road is only effective road into area

4. No opportunity to create a second primary arterial to mitigate traffic

concerns due to geography

5. Widening of Indian Trail Road to four lanes $3-$5.8mil and is not in

six year capital improvement plan.

6. Traffic study does not factor in the potential impact of developments

that could occur on undeveloped land already zoned as RMF, CC2,

and O-35 in the Indian Trail area.

v. Morningside – Other Factors

1. Violates the sub-area plan for the North Indian Trail Neighborhood

Center (2007)

2. STA only provides weekday service to this area – does not anticipate

adding weekend or evening service.

3. No substantial employment opportunities exist in the area

4. Concerns about emergency service and school

5. North Indian Trail, Balboa/South Indian Trail, and Five Mile

neighborhoods have expressed opposition to rezone.

6. More than 500 public comments have been submitted to the

Planning Department opposing the proposed amendment – not one

comment of support.

vi. The CA Land Use Committee voted unanimously at a special meeting on

6/23/16 to recommend that Community Assembly consider a resolution

supporting the North Indian Trial, Balboa South Indian Trail, and Five Mile

neighborhoods in their opposition of the Morningside comprehensive plan

amendment.

Motion: Approve support for the North Indian Trail, Balboa/South Indian Trail, and Five Mile

neighborhoods in their opposition of the Morningside comprehensive plan amendment and send that to

the Plan Commission and City Council for the public record.

Approve-13

Opposed-0

Abstain-2

9. Liaison – Design Review Board Member (DRB)

a. Paul Kropp, PeTT Committee Chair

i. CA has had the benefit of long serving - Design Review membership.

9

6

Invite members of the CA and neighborhood councils that might be

interested in filling this position.

1. At least 4 DRB meetings between June/Sept of this year, these would

be folks that are members in good standing on their NC or for CA

reps from NC that are members of the CA in good standing.

2. 3 year long appointment

3. One can always resign

4. Substantial assignment/appointment

5. Does all public projects – have a ton of huge things happening like

Riverfront Park – all these go through the DRB.

6. Bring this information back to your NC and see if people are

interested or have a background in planning or an interest in this in

general.

7. The DRB meets twice a month on the 2nd &4th Wed of the month

from 5:30-8pm.

ii. Paul will draft an email to send to CA reps to get out to their Neighborhood

Councils – also post this on Nextdoor.

10. Policy and procedures – Update

a. Valena Arguello, East Central

i. Grievance policy and possibility of having this in a committee. Having a

committee in place – tossing this idea around – what does the CA want to

do?

1. Possibly eliminate the Grievance Committee idea? 20 years of the CA

and there has not been one grievance, arbitration or resolution.

2. Standing committee, need to have specific language on how to

create the committee.

3. Would it be appropriate to have language around a grievance, keep

the language and form an ad hoc committee?

4. Simple statement on how to file a grievance and refer back to

creating an ad hoc committee.

11. Roundtable

a. Velena Arguello, East Central

i. Report on ‘Every Place Counts Design Challenge - East Central and I-90

Visioning and Design Workshop’.

1. Design workshops held at the Riverpoint Campus.

2. Great opportunity to have community input.

3. Next workshop: 3:30pm – 5pm, July 8th at the pharma building at

Riverpoint Campus.

10

7

In attendance:

16 Representatives Present

Bemiss, Chief Garry Park, Cliff Cannon, East Central, Emerson/Garfield, Grandview Thorpe, Lincoln

Heights, Logan, North Indian Trail, Peaceful Valley, Riverside, Rockwood, Southgate, West Hills,

Whitman, Nevada/Lidgerwood

Not in Attendance:

Audubon/Downriver, Balboa/SIT, Browne’s Addition, Comstock, Five Mile Prairie, Hillyard,

Latah/Hangman, Manito/Cannon Hill, Minnehaha, North Hill, Northwest, West Central

11

CA Administrative Committee Meeting

July 26, 2016 4:30 – 6:00 PM City Hall ONS

Present Neighborhoods: Present City Staff: Jay Cousins, Chair (Emerson-Garfield) Rod Minarik Kathryn Alexander, Secretary (Bemiss) Heather Trautman Tina Luerssen (Grandview-Thorpe) Seth Knutson, Vice-Chair (Cliff-Cannon) Fran Papenleur (Audubon-Downriver) - guest Absent Neighborhoods: Andrew Hoye (Southgate)

Minutes taken by Kathryn Alexander Approval of minutes from June - Approved Proposed Agenda: City Council Update, City Council Admin Committee – August Picnic, Joint CA/CC – Tina Luerssen ONS, Heather Trautman CHHS – Dawn Kinder Design Review Board – Julie Neff Mayor’s Housing Taskforce – Alicia Ayars Public Safety Report, Long-term rental stakeholder group – Julie Banks Planning Services, Public participation for future projects – Lisa Key NUSA, Trip report – Kathryn Alexander, Staff Roundtable Confirmed Agenda: City Council Update, City Council Admin Committee – August Picnic, Joint CA/CC – Tina Luerssen ONS, Heather Trautman CHHS – Dawn Kinder Design Review Board – Julie Neff Budget Committee – Kathryn Alexander Retreat Committee, Committee formation, ideas – Jay Cousins Mayor’s Housing Taskforce – Alicia Ayars Public Safety Report, Long-term rental stakeholder group – Julie Banks Roundtable

12

Follow-Up Topics: NUSA CA Website Planning Services, Lisa Key Retreat Committee

Next CA Admin Meeting August 23, 2016

13

PEDESTRIAN, TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION (PeTT) COMMITTEE

* A Committee of the Community Assembly of Spokane Neighborhood Councils *

July 26, 2016, 6:00 – 7:30 PM West Central Community Center – 1603 N. Belt Street CALL TO ORDER AND INTRODUCTIONS

• Neighborhood councils represented: 11 • Total attendance: 17

PRESENTATION

• City of Spokane Pedestrian Master Plan: Plan Overview and Its Use for Targeting Sidewalk Improvements Louis Mueler, Planning and Development Department https://my.spokanecity.org/projects/pedestrian-master-plan/

• The topic PeTT and the neighborhoods are interested in is this: How can the city's Pedestrian Master Plan (a) help guide a comprehensive program for sidewalk repair and infill and (b) assist neighborhood councils in targeting red-light funding for sidewalks in the meantime.

• Louis Mueller will return to PeTT in October to demonstrate in detail the plan's mapping data availability and potential use when it will then be available online.

DISCUSSION

• City Council member Breean Beggs Regarding the (very) preliminary ideas for an all-city sidewalk repair and infill program that were presented at PeTT in June, the possibilities are to be explored by a task group set up by the public works division. Beggs will campaign for that group to include neighborhood folks and his aide took the names of those attending who would be interested. Council member Beggs will return to PeTT when there is something with specifics to report. (The funding proposal document that council member Beggs presented to PeTT earlier is attached.)

• The committee reviewed a second draft of the PeTT policy and procedure document for Community Assembly (attached). The committee will vote to adopt at the next meeting.

REPORTS

• Office of Neighborhood Services Traffic calming project selections are being finalized. They will be presented at the next meeting.

NEXT MEETING

August 23, 2016 -- Spokane Police Department Traffic safety in general, and the "photo-red" ticketing process

14

https://my.spokanecity.org/projects/pedestrian-master-plan/�

Sidewalk Funding Proposal

A sidewalk inventory conducted in 2008-09 estimated that the City of Spokane has 1,280.75 miles of sidewalk. The poor condition of many sidewalks in the City of Spokane often substantially limits access to crucial public services and goods and creates significant hazards (and thus liability) for trip and fall injuries. While some funding is available for repair through Community Development Block Grant funding, the amount available does not come close to meeting the need for repair: In the past 5 years, the program has allocated $1.529 million for sidewalk repair.

The Problem

1

There are also other programs that offer funding for pedestrian improvements, but they don’t come close to addressing the actual needs, especially in residential neighborhoods outside the arterials.

Ask voters to approve a sidewalk levy that would raise a fixed amount of money over ten years. The funds would be divided equally among four geographic areas: the downtown core, and Council Districts 1, 2 (excluding the downtown core), and 3.

The Proposal

1 See second page for sidewalk funding from other programs and sources. The funding amounts listed do not reflect the total amount of city money spent on sidewalks, as integrated street projects include construction of new sidewalks.

15

http://iweb.spokanecity.org/images/citylc2.jpg�

The funding would also be divided by purpose: 75% of funds raised via the levy would be used for sidewalk repair, and 25% would be used for the construction of new sidewalks or pedestrian upgrades. The funds could not be used to replace existing plans to repair or install sidewalks via the street levy, CDBG funds, traffic calming funds or TBD funds- thus preserving those existing funding streams, especially the current street levy funds being used to repair and improve sidewalks on arterials.

Criteria for project funding would be similar to what is used in the Pedestrian Plan, with projects in high pedestrian traffic and critical mobility areas (schools, parks, bus routes, libraries, etc.) receiving priority.

Integrated Capital Management reports that they could substantially leverage the levy funds to double or potentially even triple the dollars available for repairs over the life of the levy.

The cost of the overall initiative would depend on the political will of the stakeholders but would likely range from $5 million to $10 million per year at an estimated corresponding cost of $50-$100/$100,000 of assessed property value. Assuming a current median home value of $150,000, a typical assessment would range from $75 to $150 per year. At the end of ten years, there would still be more work to accomplish and the voters could renew the program at a scale of accomplishment and taxation that seems appropriate.

The Cost (Estimated)

If sufficient key stakeholders agree to pursue the sidewalk levy option, staff would be asked to propose an initial high level scope of work for a low, medium and higher spending plan ($50-$100 million over ten years in addition to grant funding). Council and staff would then work with stakeholders to propose a specific levy amount for consideration on the November 2017 ballot.

Next Steps

16


Traffic Calming Fund

Appendix - Past Sidewalk Funding

2

Year Funding Amount

2010 $153,146.14 2012 $55,370 2013 $328,055 2014 $179,700 20153 $186,900 Total $903,171.14

CDBG Funds

Year Funding Amount

2011 $132,224 2012 $250,000 2013 $240,537 2014 $454,736 2015 $451,830 Total $1,529,327

TBD Funds

Year Funding Amount

2012 $79,878 2013 $294,674 2014 $365,223 2015 $114,147 Total $853,922

2 Traffic Calming Funds are generally used for infill or construction of new sidewalks. 3 No applications were accepted in 2011 for traffic calming funds.

17


Community Assembly of Spokane Neighborhood Councils Pedestrian, Transportation and Traffic Committee (PeTT) -- Policies and Procedures (DRAFT v.b -- June 2016) A. Committee Charge: Support the Community Assembly and neighborhood councils in promoting active, livable neighborhoods with multi-functional streets and a balanced transportation system. B. Committee Function: The committee receives the concerns and issues of the neighborhood councils related to streets, traffic safety, active living and transportation issues in general, and works with the Community Assembly, city staff and city council to evolve solutions and make recommendations. C. Focus Areas: The committee from time to time may indentify, or the Community Assembly may suggest, topics of specific interest for the committee's continuing attention. The committee's focus area topics will be reviewed and restated by the committee in January of each year and reduced to four or fewer. D. Participation and Attendance: Committee participation is open to any and all individual members of neighborhood councils in good standing with the Community Assembly. The names of individuals attending committee meetings will be recorded according to their neighborhood council and as either self-identified neighborhood council representative, neighborhood council alternate representative, or other. E. Meetings and Notice: The committee will establish a monthly meeting schedule to minimize conflicts with neighborhood council monthly meetings. Notice of monthly committee meetings and meeting agendas will be distributed to an email list maintained by Neighborhood Services no later than the day prior to the monthly meeting date, or any day of the prior week if possible. Committee meetings may not convene without there being present neighborhood council representatives or alternates of three different neighborhood councils in good standing with the Community Assembly. F. Quorum and Decisions: A quorum for the purpose of reaching a decision is six (6) neighborhood council representatives or alternates of neighborhood councils that have been represented at three (3) of the past six (6) regular committee meetings) For matters requiring a decision at a meeting convened with notice and a quorum being present, the committee will make its determination by the consensus of members or by agreement without objection. Voting by means of e-mail is not available. F. Officers and Terms: The committee will operate with a chair and secretary or, in the absence of a secretary, with a chair who agrees to prepare agendas, provide meeting notices and submit a meeting report to the Community Assembly after every committee meeting. The committee does not operate unless one member agrees to the duties of committee chair. The chair and secretary responsibilities are calendar year commitments, ordinarily agreed to toward the end of the calendar year for the succeeding twelve-month period.

18

Community Assembly Liaison Committee Policies and Procedures July 2016 A. Committee Charge

Maintain the city-established positions on advisory boards and commissions related to the Community Assembly. B. Functions

The committee will (1) keep up to date a profile of basic information for each liaison and representative position, including a position-specific statement of duties and responsibilities; (2) manage as necessary new liaison and representative appointments and reappointments according to term limit provisions; (3) engage in periodic evaluations of liaison and representative activities; and (4) monitor their timely reporting to the Community Assembly. C. Membership

The committee operates with a minimum of three individuals who are members of different neighborhood councils. D. Meetings

The committee meets monthly or as needed to accomplish its functions. For the convening of a meeting, a quorum is a majority of members. The committee annually will agree a day-of-the-month regular meeting date and report it to the Community Assembly for the master calendar. The committee’s meeting date in 2016 is the second Friday of the month, or the Friday after the monthly Community Assembly meeting. D. Officers and Terms

The committee will operate with a chair and secretary or, in the absence of a secretary, with a chair who agrees to prepare agendas, provide meeting notices and submit a meeting report to the Community Assembly after every committee meeting. The committee does not operate unless one member agrees to the duties of committee chair. The chair and secretary responsibilities are calendar year commitments, ordinarily agreed to toward the end of the calendar year for the succeeding twelve-month period. E. Decisions

For matters requiring a decision at a meeting convened with notice and a quorum being present, the committee will make its determination by the consensus of members or by agreement without objection. An affirmative vote on a matter submitted to all committee members by e-mail requires unanimous consent to the text of a resolution. [FINAL: Approved by committee 7/22/2016]

19

Plan Commission Liaison Report August 4, 2016 Greg Francis – [email protected] The Plan Commission provides advice and makes recommendations on broad planning goals, policies, and other matters as requested by the City Council. It meets the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at 2pm in the Council Briefing Center in city hall with hearings typically starting at 4pm if there are any scheduled for that session. All Plan Commission meetings are open to the public.

Hearings STA Central City Line Strategic Overlay Plan – The purpose of this plan is to discuss land use, economic and housing development, and transportation strategies on and near the future path of the Central City Line (from Browne’s Addition to SCC). Several revisions to the plan were made after the final PC workshop in June and an amendment was made by the PC at the 7/13/16 hearing that added “market-rate housing” to discussion about affordable housing since affordable housing has a very specific definition. This plan passed by a vote of 7-0. The plan is available for review at https://www.spokanetransit.com/projects-plans/central-city-line-strategic-overlay-planning.

Workshops 2017 Comprehensive Plan Updates – Multiple Chapters – As part of the Comprehensive Plan update scheduled for June 2017, the city is reviewing all chapters of the comp plan. A number of the changes are the results of focus groups over the past several years while some are revisions directly by the Planning Department. While these are emphasized as updates of chapters rather than rewrites, some of the changes appear fairly substantial. In July, the Plan Commission was given overviews of changes to the following chapters: Economic Development (Chapter 7), Social Health (Chapter 10), and Parks and Recreation (Chapter 12). The draft chapters are available for review at https://my.spokanecity.org/shapingspokane/. Comments may be submitted to [email protected]. Note: I strongly encourage people that have an interest in how the Comprehensive Plan guides the direction of the city to review these chapters and submit comments. While it has been emphasized during our PC workshops that the changes are not considered substantial, any language change can impact the interpretation of individual chapters.

Upcoming Hearings (Known) Comprehensive Plan Amendments – The three 2015/2016 Comprehensive Plan amendments (Morningside, QueenB, and Avista) will tentatively have public hearings in September. Public testimony will be taken on 9/14/16 for QueenB and Avista, a special

20

meeting on 9/21/16 is tentatively scheduled to begin Morningside public testimony, with continuation of public testimony (if needed) for Morningside on 9/28/16. The deliberation and final vote for all three Comp Plan amendments will be on 9/28/16. The hearings are being split between these three dates in anticipation of substantial public comment at the hearings. These dates are tentative with the special 9/21/16 meeting still awaiting confirmation of a quorum by Plan Commission members.

Other The Plan Commission met with the City Council for a joint planning session. Topics include an update on the university pedestrian bridge (construction may start as soon as January 2017), the status of the Infill Development Project, and a discussion about the Multifamily Tax Exemption that is up for reconsideration in 2017.

Infill Development Project With the completion of the focus groups at the end of June, the steering committee has met once in July and will meet two more times in August to review feedback from all six focus groups and to group and prioritize the findings. The planning staff are still collecting and compiling written feedback from a number of the focus groups. That content will be discussion points in the upcoming steering committee meetings. The final outcome of these meetings will be a set of findings that will go to the full Plan Commission for review and then on to the City Council for final consideration. There may be some immediate changes as a result of the report as well as longer term changes that will require more work to implement. Patrick Rooks (West Hills) and Greg Francis (CA Liaison to Plan Commission) are both members of the steering committee and both participated in the July meeting. See https://my.spokanecity.org/projects/infill-housing-strategies-infill-development/ for all project documentation.

21

August DRB

CA-Report

Aug 4th

2016

Colleen Gardner

All three of the reviews that came before the board on July 20th

were sent forward with a

recommendation from the board to approve as presented by the applicants:

Franklin School

6th

Platt of Kendal Yards

Jaguar dealer ship

The downtown CSO Plaza collaborative workshop held on July 27th

,2016 was sent back

to the applicant with some possible revisions. I did not receive the final wording on the

recommendation prior to preparing this report but it will be sent out as soon as I receive.

Again all reviews are recorded and all information is available at the planning department

if you wish to review

As always am available to the Neighborhoods at any time.

22

Building Stronger Neighborhoods

7/25/2016 12:00PM

Sinto Senior Center

Members present: Tina Luerssen (Grandview/Thorpe), Seth Knutson (Cliff/Cannon),

Dixie Zahniser (Manito/Cannon Hill), Kelly Lotze (Browne’s Addition)

ONS staff liaison: absent

Guests: Karyll VanNess, Value Village

Housekeeping

o Chair EJ Iannelli is out of town, and ONS liaison Katie Myers is home

sick. Member Elaine Thorne also emailed to let us know she was unable

to attend.

o Minutes were approved unanimously.

Education & Outreach

o Guest Speaker:

Karyll presented a program from Value Village, they will purchase

donations from Non-Profit Organizations to use as a fund-raiser.

The organization receives $0.20/lb for cloth and $0.05/lb for

miscellaneous items. They will accept most anything in good

condition that is the size of a microwave or smaller. Books are a

very good item for this, as they are heavy and Value Village is

always looking for novels and current books to sell. The minimum

amount to participate is 1000 pounds, and Value Village will

reimburse the organization for a rental truck, up to $75. The

donations need to be delivered to Value Village (708 W Boone),

which is open from 9am-9pm every day.

Karyll passed out folders with information as well as her card.

Contact info: [email protected], 509-325-2569.

o Next ONS/BSN Neighborhood Training

Social Media. EJ has discussed helping to lead this training on

using Facebook, Twitter and NextDoor. We will discuss further

next meeting when he is in attendance.

o CA Website

Admin has discussed the CA Website, and asked BSN to discuss

ideas. Reasons why we would use the website include: NC

Contact info, Outreach Info (Nextdoor/Facebook instructions), CA

General Information, CA Committees minutes/agendas, CA

Packets, NC Program Information (traffic calming, handbook,

cleanups, CDBG applications).

The big issue is Maintenance of this website. All changes are done

through the City, and currently there is no one point of contact at

ONS so changes are not always timely or accurate. BSN believes

23


that this could be the biggest help in maintaining an accurate and

effective website, to have one person at ONS who is the point of

contact and who is responsible for keeping information up-to-date.

Announcements & Upcoming Events

o National Night Out is August 2nd

. There are many events planned around

the city, which Neighborhoods can use to help spread information and sign

up neighbors for notification/email lists.

o CA BBQ is Sunday August 14th

. CA Reps, Alternates, Committee Chairs,

as well as City Councilmembers, ONS Staff and select City Department

Heads have been invited. Idea for discussion at this event: to present how

everyone is using their Budget funds in their Neighborhood.

Next meeting: Next regular meeting will be on Monday, August 22nd

. 12pm at Sinto

Senior Center

24

CA/CDCommitteeoftheCommunityAssemblyMinutesDate:Tuesday,July5thfrom5:30-7:00p.m.Location:attheWestCentralCommunityCenter,intheNewtonRoomPresent:ValenaArguello(EastCentral),TimMusser(EmersonGarfield),JessieNorris(WestCentral,KathrynAlexander(Bemiss),BillForman(PeacefulValley),SandyHart(ShiloHills),CharlesHansen(Whitman)ONS:HeatherTrautmanCHHS:DawnKinderWelcomeandIntroductionsMeetingMinutes:MinutesforApril,MayandJunewereapproved.DawnKinderfromCHHS:CHHShasjustfinishedreviewingtheirbudgetandfinances.Theyhavebeenoverspendingandwillberevisingthe2017CDBGneighborhoodallocationswithourinput.Thereisa$60,000shortfallthatneedstobeaddressed.Theshortfallwas$200,000intotal.Shepresentedtwooptionsandaftermuchdiscussionitwasdecidedtoaccepta%reductionacrosstheboard.Thiskepttheallocationsasclosetotheoriginalagreementaspossibleandensurethatalleligibleneighborhoodsgetatleastsomeoftheavailablefunds.MotionproposedbyAlexanderandsecondedbyNorris.ApprovedunanimouslyEducationMaterials:ForthenextfewmonthstheCDBGcommitteewantstoincreasetheireducationaloutreachtotheneighborhoods.Severaloptionswerediscussed:makingavailabletheHUDResourceGuide,addspotblightdescriptiontosuggestions,postaCDBG‘idea’scrapbook,putprojectprofilesuponthewebsite,createawelcomepacketwithCDBGinformation,createabrochuredescribingtheprocesswithprojectsuggestions.Kathrynagreedtomockupabrochuredesignforthenextmeeting.PuttingmoreinformationthatiseasilydigestibleandsimpletounderstandupontheCDBGwebsitepagecouldalsoincludelinkstoHUDmaterialsandvideos.HeatheragreedtotalktoITaboutaddingbackthe“whereamI?”toolonthewebsite,sopeoplecouldeasilyfindoutwhatneighborhoodtheyarein.BothHeatherandValenaareworkingwithITtogettheCDBGwebpageupdated.SubmittedbyKathrynAlexander

25

Community Assembly BBQ

Sunday, August 14th 2016

4:30-7PM

Manito Park, North Shelter

Come celebrate community and the work that we put in

throughout the years! Please bring a guest, whether it be

another Neighborhood leader, significant other, or just

someone you want to spend time with. We’ve received

donations from Chief Garry Park businesses (Happy Laundry,

Clines Air Conditioning, and DLJWF Inc) for burgers, hot dogs

and buns. We will purchase plates, napkins, forks, cups,

charcoal and tablecloths using CA Budget funds. Please sign

up to bring a Condiment, Salad, Chips, Dessert, or Beverage.

RSVP by Tuesday August 9th. The invitation list is meant to

include all CA Reps, Alternates and Committee Chairs, as well

as City Councilmembers, ONS Staff, and select City

Department Heads. If you believe someone has been omitted

from this list, please contact Tina ([email protected] or

509.844.3299).

26


1

Community Assembly

Master Calendar

This calendar includes the Community Assembly and all standing committees.

This calendar may not be definitive. Please send any corrections or changes//additions to the Admin Committee.

Community Assembly (CA) Calendar

January: Awards Committee formed

February: Retreat

Formulate next year’s goals

March: Select NUSA Reps

April:

May: Retreat Follow-up

June: NUSA Report

July:

August: CA Picnic

September: Create Nominating Committee for Admin

October: Present Slate for Admin

Set CA/CC meeting dates

November: Vote on Admin slate

Policy & Procedures committee selected

December: Standing committee goals accepted and approved

27

2

CA Award Dinner and Celebration

Administrative Committee Calendar

January: Set CA Calendar

Retreat on CA agenda

February: Budget on CA agenda

March: Retreat report on CA agenda

April:

May: Retreat follow-up on CA agenda

June:

July:

August:

September:

October: Formulate next year’s goals

Submit any website changes

November: Goal acceptance/approval on CA agenda

December: New officers take over

Budget Committee Calendar

January: Report to CA/CC on the NC achievements/challenges

Elects officers

February: RFPs open to NCs

28

3

March: CA Budget request to CC

April: NC RFP soft deadline

May:

June:

July: NC RFP hard deadline

August:

September: Final budget spending plan

October: Formulate next year’s goals – Set Calendar


New member nominations

November: Officer nominations

December: Officers elected

Building Stronger Neighborhoods (BSN) Calendar


Set next year’s Calendar


Dec: Officer elections

Community Assembly/Community Development (CA/CD) (Block Grant) Calendar



29

4


Land Use Calendar




Dec: Officers elections

Liaison Calendar




Dec: Officer elections

Pedestrian, Transportation and Traffic (PeTT) Calendar




Public Safety Committee Calendar




30

5

Retreat Committee Calendar

January:

February: Retreat

March:

April:

May: Retreat follow-up

June:

July:

August: Initial retreat planning

Facilitator RFP sent out

September:




November: Facilitator selected/contracted

December: First facilitator planning meeting

31

Community, Housing, & Human Services

CDBG Funds

2016 Funds & Project Updates

Reduction in overall CDBG Award

Why the Reduction:

■ Anticipated cuts from HUD

– Average cut past three years = $27,274

– Planning on a cut of at least 1% or $29,878

■ Changes in neighborhood block groups (eligibility for CDBG funds)

■ Internal over award of CDBG Funds

– In recent years CHHS has awarded more funds than were available through CDBG Entitlement funds

Important Notes:

■ We are not taking an increased value for internal admin costs

■ Cuts are not only being applied to neighborhood allocations

$3,069,679.00

$3,017,768.00

$2,997,960.00

$2,987,856.00

$2,957,977.44

$2,900,000.00

$2,920,000.00

$2,940,000.00

$2,960,000.00

$2,980,000.00

$3,000,000.00

$3,020,000.00

$3,040,000.00

$3,060,000.00

$3,080,000.00

PY 2013 PY 2014 PY 2015 PY 2016 PY 2017 (Est.)

CDBG Allocations

CDBG

Process for Determining Reduced Allocations

■ CHHS worked through potential methods for distributing the cut to neighborhood

allocations

■ 7/5/16 two proposals were taken the CA/CD for feedback and discussion

– A recommendation was made that we apply the reductions equally across

neighborhoods

■ 7/7/16 reduced funding allocations were briefed and provided to CA

■ 7/8/16 reduced funding allocations were emailed to CA for disbursement to

Neighborhood Councils

Other CDBG Decreases

The CHHS RFP released later this month includes the following reductions:

■ Economic Development: -$25,000.00 to - $50,000.00

■ Other Real Property: -$25,000.00

■ Public Facilities: -$25,000.00 to - $50,000.00

■ Public Services: -$25,000.00

2016 Neighborhood Allocations

The following Neighborhoods are ineligible

for CDBG funds based on area income:

■ Balboa

■ Comstock

■ Five Mile

■ Grandview Thorpe

■ Manito/Cannon Hill

■ North Indian Trail

Project Updates

■ See handouts

– Status report on all 2015 and 2016 neighborhood projects

City of Spokane

Planning and Development Services

Design Review Board Staff

Julie Neff, Associate Planner, Design Review Board Secretary, [email protected]

Nathan Gwinn, Assistant Planner, [email protected]

Omar Akkari, Urban Designer, [email protected]

Shayne Schoonover, Clerk III, [email protected]

Spokane’s

Design Review Board





Who serves?

Purpose: The Design Review Board is comprised of eight citizens and practicing professionals who represent community interests including a diversity of design and technical professions. Positions Real Estate Developer Landscape Architect Community Assembly Representative Spokane Arts Commission Architect Citizen at Large Urban Planner/Designer Civil / Structural Engineer

Board members are nominated by the Mayor, appointed by City Council, and serve without compensation.

DRB Position Opening

Board Vacancy 12/31/2016

• Community Assembly Representative

Term of service

• Three Years

Term Limit

• Two Terms

Why is the DRB needed?

Project applicants and

the permitting process

are often focused

inward on specific site

and program challenges.

Why is the DRB needed?

Design Review opens a discussion that includes the visual and functional relationships with the surrounding area – to help improve the entire district.

What is the purpose?

Section 04.13.015 Design Review Board The Board was established for a variety of reasons including the following: • Improve communication early in the design

process; • Help implement the Comprehensive Plan; • Advocate for the aesthetic quality of Spokane's

public realm; • Encourage designs that respond to context,

enhance pedestrian characteristics and consider sustainable design practices;

• Provide flexibility in the application of development standards as allowed through development standard departures; and

• Ensure that public projects serve as models of design quality.

THE BOARD’S ROLE IS ADVISORY TO THE ACTION APPROVING AUTHORITY

https://my.spokanecity.org/smc/?Section=04.13.015

What kinds of projects?

What Criteria?

Public Projects

• Comprehensive Plan

• Any other adopted design criteria as applicable

Downtown Projects

• Downtown Design Guidelines

• Fast Forward Spokane Downtown Plan Update

• Comprehensive Plan

What kinds of projects?

What Criteria?

Shoreline Conditional Use Permit

• SMC 17E.060.800 Design Standards and Guidelines “Considerations”

• Shoreline Master Program Comprehensive Plan

Design Departures

• Design Departures Section 17G.030.030 Review Process. The intent of the “design standard” from which the applicant is requesting flexibility.

What is not typically addressed?

• Traffic impacts

• Type of land use

• Slope stability

• Internal building design

Recent Projects

Riverfront Park Master Plan

Recent Projects

South Bank Interceptor - CSO 26

Recent Projects

Larry H. Miller Honda

Recent Projects

Kendall Yards 6th Addition Revised Plat

Applicant Submittal Franklin Elementary School

Example DRB Project Walkthrough


Staff report is written by planning staff and forwarded to DRB and Neighborhood Council Chair at least one week before the meeting.


Applicant presents project at DRB meeting

Meeting 1 - Collaborative Workshop • Presented: Applicants present site and context information

and describe the development objectives

• Focus: Context, site, and early design concepts and considerations.

• Result: Board identifies design guidelines or criteria of highest

priority for the proposal.


Based on review of the materials submitted by the applicant and discussion during the May 11, 2016 Collaborative Workshop the Design Review Board recommends the following: 1. Applicant shall consider additional articulation of the façade to better define the base middle top concept on the south side of the building and investigate means of detailing, additional materials, colors etc. to better celebrate the historic character of the existing 1909 school.

2. Applicant shall consider mitigating the bulk of the building’s new addition through architectural treatments.


Meeting 2 - Recommendation Meeting Presented: Applicant presents design updates and how they

addressed Collaborative Workshop recommendations

Focus: More focus on design details such as architectural details, landscape, lighting, and signage

Result: DRB prepares a recommendation regarding the proposal’s consistency with applicable design guidelines for the permit approving authority.

Step 2 – Recommendation Meeting

Added more height and articulation to top Added precast window sills Added recessed brick course to articulate base Added Concrete Planter

Changes Based on CW Recommendation

Drawings courtesy of ALSC Architects

Drawings courtesy of ALSC Architects

Changes Based on CW Recommendation

Based on review of the materials submitted by the applicant and discussion during the July 20, 2016 Recommendation Meeting the Design Review Board recommends the following:

We recommend approval of the project as presented.

Step 2 – Recommendation Meeting

When:

The Design Review Board meets the 2nd and 4th Wednesdays of each month at 5:30 PM

Where:

City Council Briefing Center in the lower level of City Hall.

DRB Meeting

Apply today!

Link to Application for DRB Board

https://static.spokanecity.org/documents/bcc/committee-commissions-board-application-2014-10-30.pdf

Link to Design Review City webpage

Link to Design Review Board Administration and Procedures

Link To Design Review Application Handbook

Other Design Review Links

https://my.spokanecity.org/bcc/boards/design-review-board/

https://my.spokanecity.org/smc/?Chapter=17G.040



https://static.spokanecity.org/documents/business/resources/applications/landuse/application-design-review.pdf

https://static.spokanecity.org/documents/business/resources/applications/landuse/application-design-review.pdf

City of Spokane

Planning and Development Services

Design Review Board Staff

Julie Neff, Associate Planner, Design Review Board Secretary, [email protected]

Nathan Gwinn, Assistant Planner, [email protected]

Omar Akkari, Urban Designer, [email protected]

Shayne Schoonover, Clerk III, [email protected]

Spokane’s

Design Review Board





1

Final report to include:

Community meeting notes

Roundtable discussion notes

Success of the HQT means:

• Implementing programs and policies in order to return underutilized, foreclosed, and abandoned homes to the housing market quickly.

Six areas of housing:

Substandard Properties

Abandoned Homes

Homes in Foreclosure

Chronic Nuisance Properties

Vacant Residential Lots

Housing Affordability

2

Broad focus, create recommendations that aim to create mixed-income neighborhoods and there for increased housing options.

2

Stakeholder Representatives: 36 total City Council Spokane Relators Police Spokane Regional Health District Legal SNAP Neighborhood Services & Code Enforcement Spokane Low Income Consortium Community, Housing & Human Services Spokane Community Land Trust Planning & Development NE Community Center Plan Commission Financial Institutions – Umpqua Bank Fire Empire Health Foundation Community Assembly Spokane Mortgage Lenders Association Spokane Housing Authority Transitions Bankers Roundtable: Global Credit Union Bank of America Umpqua Boeing Credit Union Numerica Credit Union Inland Northwest Bank Banner Bank Wheatland Bank STCU Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Washington Trust US Bank Real Estate/Developers: Inland Professional Title Windermere Commercial Commercial Real Estate Group WA Trust Spokane’s Superior Solutions Beacon Hill Properties

3

Roundtable meeting #2 total participants: over 22+ Community Meeting over 60 participants + online survey, 60+ responses Timeline: May 2nd & 18th – kick off mtgs. Research and background presented to task force May 23rd & June 2nd – Roundtable mtg. w/two industry types. Objective: 1. provide background research 2. Gather input and recommendations from the industry that should be considered June 7th – Provide notes and recommendations of the two roundtable meeting to the task force. Task force members come to meeting with first set of recommendations (Quality=26, Affordability=22) Sub-committee breakout groups: 3 sets of meetings June 14th, 15th, 28th, & 29th – sub-committees work to gather research and further prioritize recommendations Community Meeting June 28th – 60+ participants. 4 questions. Input will be included in final report. Online survey, same 4 questions, over 60+ responses to online survey. July 12th & 13th – provide input from community meeting to task force. Task force further prioritize/narrow down recommendations (Quality=9 Affordability=12) July 14th – second roundtable mtg. Included both bank/financial representatives and real estate/developers, over 22 participants August 17th – provide input from second round table. Further prioritize recommendations August 31st – present recommendations to the Mayor After August 31st mtg.: - Draft final report - Final report to Mayor and City Council - Determine recommendations to implement

3

Housing Quality committee 9 recommendations Housing Affordability committee 12 recommendations 21 Recommendations currently Final report will be presented to the Mayor and City Council They may decide to implement select recommendations

4

Rental Housing Research Stakeholder Group

Public Safety Committee

Final Report to the Community Assembly

August 4, 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Letter to the Community Assembly from Julie Banks, Public Safety Committee Chair ................. 1

Landlord Stakeholder Presentation (Original Version) ................................................................... 3

Landlord Stakeholder Presentation (Alternate Version) .............................................................. 13

Neighborhood Stakeholder Presentation ..................................................................................... 29

Tenant Stakeholder Presentation ................................................................................................. 37

Project Materials Index ................................................................................................................. 51

To the Community Assembly:

The Community Assembly expressed an interest in researching and understanding the current conditions for rental housing units. The Public Safety Committee established the goal for its work to identify issues associated with rental housing units, resources and existing policies, ordinances and organizations that are related to housing unit rentals and identify the gaps in issues and resources of rental housing. To accomplish this goal, the Public Safety Committee convened a Stakeholder Group comprising representatives from neighborhood councils, landlords and tenants. For the past 16 months the Stakeholder Group has heard presentations from the following agencies, organizations and professionals as their work pertains to the issues related to rental housing:

Spokane Regional Health District

City of Spokane Building Department

City of Spokane Department Code Enforcement

City of Spokane Fire Prevention Bureau

City of Spokane Attorney

Spokane Low Income Housing Consortium

Spokane Housing Authority

Attorneys Jose Trejo and Tom McGarry The final presentations the group heard were prepared by the Stakeholder Groups themselves, summarizing the issues and concerns from each of their unique perspectives. These presentations are here for your review. Through consensus, the Long‐term Stakeholder Group agreed to recommend their conclusions be reviewed and considered by this body for submission to the Mayor’s Housing Quality Task Force as additional data and recommendations to complement their work. Respectfully, Julie Banks, Public Safety Committee Chair

1

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

2

Landlord Stakeholder Presentation (Original Version)

Disclaimer: The Landlord Stakeholder Presentation presented at the March 22, 2016 stakeholder meeting

contained language that characterized individuals and groups, and was deemed offensive by some

stakeholders. In response, the Landlords submitted an alternate version revising the language that was

deemed offensive. At the July 28, 2016 stakeholder meeting, the stakeholders debated which version of

the Landlord Stakeholder Presentation to forward to the Community Assembly. The stakeholders voted

by a majority to forward both the original and revised versions; and to include this disclaimer with the

presentations.

3

Representin

g�Land

lord�Stakeho

lders:

Land

lord�Associatio

n:�Alexand

er�Scott�and

�Steve�Corker

National�A

ssociatio

n�of�Residentia

l�Prope

rty�Managers:�Eric�Bisset

Spokane�Ho

using�Ventures:�Patty�W

ebster

Spokane�Ho

using�Au

thority

:�Cicely�Bradley

Small�Scale�Landlord:�HeleenDe

wey,�Chris�Bo

rnho

ft

Econ

omics�of�Renter�P

roperties Owner

Renter

Total

Single�Unit

44,443

��

15,948

��

60,391

��

Two�to�fo

ur�Unit

8,18

8��

8,18

8��

Five�plus�Unit

15,480

��

15,480

��

Total�R

enter�P

roperties

44,443

��

39,616

��

84,059

��

53%

47%

�Renter�

Prop

ertie

s�Avge�$

Total�$

Single�Unit

15,948

��

115,00

0�

1,83

4,02

0,00

0��

Two�to�fo

ur�Unit

8,18

8��

55,000

��

450,34

0,00

0��

Prop

erty�Values

Five�plus�Unit

15,480

��

50,000

��

774,00

0,00

0��

Total�R

enter�P

roperties

39,616

��

3,05

8,36

0,00

0��

City�In

come

�Renter�

Prop

ertie

s��Avge�/�y

r�Total/yr

Avge�/�

mth�

Total�/�yr

Total�/�yr

Single�Unit

15,948

��

2,00

0��

31,896

,000

��

100

��

19,137

,600

�51

,033

,600

�Tw

o�to�fo

ur�Unit

8,18

8��

750

��

6,14

1,00

0��

50��

4,91

2,80

0��

11,053

,800

�Five�plus�Unit

15,480

��

750

��

11,610

,000

��

50��

9,28

8,00

0��

20,898

,000

�Total�R

enter�P

roperties

39,616

��

49,647

,000

��

33,338

,400

�82

,985

,400

�%�of�C

ity�201

6�Bu

dget

6%4%

10%

Prop

erty�Taxes

Utilitie

s

Renter

�Avge�/�

mth�

Total�/�yr

Single�Unit

15,948

��

800

��

153,10

0,80

0��

Two�to�fo

ur�Unit

8,18

8��

500

��

49,128

,000

��

Five�plus�Unit

15,480

��

500

��

92,880

,000

��

Total�R

enter�P

roperties

39,616

��

295,10

8,80

0��

%�of�C

ity�201

6�Bu

dget

36%

$�M

Rental�in

come

GDP�20

08�City

�of�Spo

kane

17,640

��

Real�Estate�an

d�Rental�and

�Leasing

2,04

1��

12%

http://econp

ost.com/gdp

/spo

kane�washing

ton�gd

p�table�20

08

4

Why�do�land

lords�invest�in�re

side

ntial�p

rope

rty?

Capital�app

reciation�–long�te

rm,�rep

urpo

se�prope

rty

Got�the

�prope

rty�cheap�–e.g.�inhe

ritance,�foreclosure

Alternative�investment�a

t�stage�of�life

Alternative�investment�com

pared�to�econo

mic�con

ditio

ns

Increase�profit�by�be

tter�M

anagem

ent�:

Increase

rent

over

time

Increase�re

nt�over�tim

eIncrease�re

nt�–be

tter�prope

rty�cond

ition

Redu

ce�Vacancies

Goo

d�tenants�–

pay�rent�on�tim

e,�ta

ke�care�of�prope

rty,�no

�dam

age

Redu

ce�co

sts�by�not�re

pairing�sh

ort�term

Redu

ce�co

sts��by�no

t�doing�long�te

rm�re

placem

ents

Ope

rate�and

�sell�be

fore�m

ajor�im

provem

ents�are�re

quire

d

5

6

Popu

latio

n�De

mograph

ics

Popu

latio

nSpokan

e�Co

unty

City�of�

Spokan

e

Person

s�below

�poverty�line

76,910

��42

,201

��Est:�Hou

seho

lds�b

elow

�poverty�line

30,764

��17

,584

��Est:�%�of�rental�units�occup

ied�by�

households

underp

overty

line

44%

households�und

er�poverty�line

44%

Popu

latio

n��484

,318

��212

,067

�

Per�c

apita

�income

26,235

��

24,848

��Median�ho

usehold�income

50,249

��

43,694

��Ho

usehold�income�un

der� $

50k

50.0%

55.0%

$Person

s�below�poverty�line�%

16.4%

19.9%

Poverty�Ch

ildren�(und

er�18)

20.0%

25.0%

Poverty�Seniors�(65�an

d�over)

9.0%

12.0%

Number�o

f�hou

seho

lds

187,60

3�

85,300

��Person

s�per�h

ouseho

ld2.5

2.4

Number�o

f�hou

sing�Units

206,10

6�

95,947

��Source:�https://censusrepo

rter.org/profiles/160

00US536

7000

�spokan

e

.Age�of�Rental�Properties

Renter

Pct.

1930�and�prior

10,696

��

27%

1931�to�1960

12,677

��

32%

1961�to�1990

5,546

��

14%

1991�to�Current

10,696

��

27%

39,616

��

100%

AfR

Pi

Age�of�Renter�Propeties

1930�and�

prior,��10,696�

,�27%

1991�to�

Current,��

10,696�,�27%

1931�to�

1960,��12,677�

,�32%

1961�to�

1990,��5,546�,�

14%

7

Investment�in�Re

sidentia

l�rentals�is�ECOMONIC�driv

en:

8

9

10

11


12

Landlord Stakeholder Presentation (Alternate Version)

Disclaimer: The Landlord Stakeholder Presentation presented at the March 22, 2016 stakeholder meeting

contained language that characterized individuals and groups, and was deemed offensive by some

stakeholders. In response, the Landlords submitted an alternate version revising the language that was

deemed offensive. At the July 28, 2016 stakeholder meeting, the stakeholders debated which version of

the Landlord Stakeholder Presentation to forward to the Community Assembly. The stakeholders voted

by a majority to forward both the original and revised versions; and to include this disclaimer with the

presentations.

13

Representin

g�Land

lord�Stakeho

lders:

Land

lord�Associatio

n:�Alexand

er�Scott�and

�Steve�Corker

National�A

ssociatio

n�of�Residentia

l�Prope

rty�Managers:�Eric�Bisset

Spokane�Ho

using�Ventures:�Patty�W

ebster

Spokane�Ho

using�Au

thority

:�Cicely�Bradley

Small�Scale�Landlord:�HeleenDe

wey,�Chris�Bo

rnho

ft

Econ

omics�of�Renter�P

roperties Owner

Renter

Total

Single�Unit

44,443

��

15,948

��

60,391

��

Two�to�fo

ur�Unit

8,18

8��

8,18

8��

Five�plus�Unit

15,480

��

15,480

��

Total�R

enter�P

roperties

44,443

��

39,616

��

84,059

��

53%

47%

�Renter�

Prop

ertie

s�Avge�$

Total�$

Single�Unit

15,948

��

115,00

0�

1,83

4,02

0,00

0��

Two�to�fo

ur�Unit

8,18

8��

55,000

��

450,34

0,00

0��

Prop

erty�Values

Five�plus�Unit

15,480

��

50,000

��

774,00

0,00

0��

Total�R

enter�P

roperties

39,616

��

3,05

8,36

0,00

0��

City�In

come

�Renter�

Prop

ertie

s��Avge�/�y

r�Total/yr

Avge�/�

mth�

Total�/�yr

Total�/�yr

Single�Unit

15,948

��

2,00

0��

31,896

,000

��

100

��

19,137

,600

�51

,033

,600

�Tw

o�to�fo

ur�Unit

8,18

8��

750

��

6,14

1,00

0��

50��

4,91

2,80

0��

11,053

,800

�Five�plus�Unit

15,480

��

750

��

11,610

,000

��

50��

9,28

8,00

0��

20,898

,000

�Total�R

enter�P

roperties

39,616

��

49,647

,000

��

33,338

,400

�82

,985

,400

�%�of�C

ity�201

6�Bu

dget

6%4%

10%

Prop

erty�Taxes

Utilitie

s

Renter

�Avge�/�

mth�

Total�/�yr

Single�Unit

15,948

��

800

��

153,10

0,80

0��

Two�to�fo

ur�Unit

8,18

8��

500

��

49,128

,000

��

Five�plus�Unit

15,480

��

500

��

92,880

,000

��

Total�R

enter�P

roperties

39,616

��

295,10

8,80

0��

%�of�C

ity�201

6�Bu

dget

36%

$�M

Rental�in

come

GDP�20

08�City

�of�Spo

kane

17,640

��

Real�Estate�an

d�Rental�and

�Leasing

2,04

1��

12%

http://econp

ost.com/gdp

/spo

kane�washing

ton�gd

p�table�20

08

14

Why�do�land

lords�invest�in�re

side

ntial�p

rope

rty?

Capital�app

reciation�–long�te

rm,�rep

urpo

se�prope

rty

Got�the

�prope

rty�cheap�–e.g.�inhe

ritance,�foreclosure

Alternative�investment�a

t�stage�of�life

Alternative�investment�com

pared�to�econo

mic�con

ditio

ns

Increase�profit�by�be

tter�M

anagem

ent�:

Increase

rent

over

time

Increase�re

nt�over�tim

eIncrease�re

nt�–be

tter�prope

rty�cond

ition

Redu

ce�Vacancies

Goo

d�tenants�–

pay�rent�on�tim

e,�ta

ke�care�of�prope

rty,�no

�dam

age

Redu

ce�co

sts�by�not�re

pairing�sh

ort�term

Redu

ce�co

sts��by�no

t�doing�long�te

rm�re

placem

ents

Ope

rate�and

�sell�be

fore�m

ajor�im

provem

ents�are�re

quire

d

15

16

Popu

latio

n�De

mograph

ics

Popu

latio

nSpokan

e�Co

unty

City�of�

Spokan

e

Person

s�below

�poverty�line

76,910

��42

,201

��Est:�Hou

seho

lds�b

elow

�poverty�line

30,764

��17

,584

��Est:�%�of�rental�units�occup

ied�by�

households

underp

overty

line

44%

households�und

er�poverty�line

44%

Popu

latio

n��484

,318

��212

,067

�

Per�c

apita

�income

26,235

��

24,848

��Median�ho

usehold�income

50,249

��

43,694

��Ho

usehold�income�un

der� $

50k

50.0%

55.0%

$Person

s�below�poverty�line�%

16.4%

19.9%

Poverty�Ch

ildren�(und

er�18)

20.0%

25.0%

Poverty�Seniors�(65�an

d�over)

9.0%

12.0%

Number�o

f�hou

seho

lds

187,60

3�

85,300

��Person

s�per�h

ouseho

ld2.5

2.4

Number�o

f�hou

sing�Units

206,10

6�

95,947

��Source:�https://censusrepo

rter.org/profiles/160

00US536

7000

�spokan

e

.Age�of�Rental�Properties

Renter

Pct.

1930�and�prior

10,696

��

27%

1931�to�1960

12,677

��

32%

1961�to�1990

5,546

��

14%

1991�to�Current

10,696

��

27%

39,616

��

100%

AfR

Pi

Age�of�Renter�Propeties

1930�and�

prior,��10,696�

,�27%

1991�to�

Current,��

10,696�,�27%

1931�to�

1960,��12,677�

,�32%

1961�to�

1990,��5,546�,�

14%

17

Investment�in�Re

sidentia

l�rentals�is�ECOMONIC�driv

en:

18

19

20

21

Exam

ples�of�a�Ren

tal�Prope

rties�w

ith�value

�of�aroun

d�$120,000�in�th

e�North�Cen

tral�Area:�

� Prop

erty�

Coun

ty�Records�

703�W�Spo

fford�Ave,�S

pokane

�992

05�–�3�bed

room

�1�

bathroom

�single�family�hom

e�

�

Spokane�Co

unty�Records:�

http://w

ww.spo

kane

coun

ty.org/pub

padal/P

arcelSum

mary.aspx�

�� Prop

erty�ta

xes:�$1,23

7py.�Built�in�190

2.�

� If�Selling�Value

�is�$11

0,00

0,�and

�land

�value

�is�$14

,450

�then

�hou

se�value

�is�$1

05,900

�� Mon

thly�Ren

ts:�

https://www.re

ntom

eter.com

/results/exXzH

Z5Qod

w�

703�W�Spo

fford�Ave,�S

pokane

�992

05�–�3�bed

room

�sho

ws�an�average�

rent�of�$7

85�based

�on�13

�3�bed

roon

�ren

tals�

in�a�0.23�mile�radius�

(4/25/20

16)�

918�

N�C

edar�St,�

Spok

ane,�W

A�99

201�

��2�

beds�1�

bath�1,507

�sqft��For�S

ale�$1

10,000

�For�S

ale�Listing�Zillo

w:�

http://w

ww.zillow

.com

/hom

edetails/91

8�N�Ced

ar�St�Spokane�WA�

99201/23520873_zpid/�

Great�on

e�level�

living�

near�the�

conven

ient�no

rth�

river�bank�

neighb

orho

od.�Many�up

grades�including�w

indo

ws,�vinyl�siding�and�

cemen

t�front�porch.�N

ewer�kitche

n�is�light�and

�brig

ht.�

� Spokane�Co

unty�Records:�

http://w

ww.spo

kane

coun

ty.org/pub

padal/P

arcelSum

mary.aspx�

�Prop

erty�ta

xes:�$1,23

7py.�Built�in�190

2.�

� If�Selling�Price�is�$1

10,000

,�and

�land

�value

�is�$18,000

�then

�hou

se�value

�is�$92,000�

� Mon

thly�Ren

ts:�

https://www.re

ntom

eter.com

/results/exXzH

Z5Qod

w�

918�N�Ced

ar�St,�Spokane�99

201�–�2�be

droo

m�sho

ws�an�average�re

nt�of�

$559

�based

�on�25�2�bed

room

�rentals�in�a�0.25

�mile�ra

dius�(4

/25/20

16)�

1422

�W�In

dian

a�Av

e,�Spo

kane

,�WA�99

205��3

�bed

s�1�

bath�2,164

�sqft��For�S

ale�$1

50,000

�For�S

ale�Listing�Zillo

w:�

http://w

ww.zillow

.com

/hom

edetails/14

22�W

�Indiana�Av

e�Spokane�

WA�99205/23481173_zpid/�

Huge�sho

p�with

�its�ow

n�po

wer!�An

�auto�en

thusiasts�dream�sho

p.�Set�

up�for�a�car�hoist.�This�

home�has�be

en�com

pletely�redo

ne�inside.�

Ready�for�y

our�landscaping�and

�exterior.�19

04�built.�

� Spokane�Co

unty�Records:�

http://w

ww.spo

kane

coun

ty.org/pub

padal/P

arcelSum

mary.aspx�

� Mon

thly�Ren

ts:�

https://www.re

ntom

eter.com

/results/exXzH

Z5Qod

w�

918�N�Ced

ar�St,�Spokane�99

201�–�2�be

droo

m�sho

ws�an�average�re

nt�of�

Tax

Year

Land

Dwel

ling

/ St

ruct

ure

Cur

rent

Us

e L

and

Taxa

ble

Pers

onal

Pr

opTo

tal

Val

ue

2016

14,4

5010

5,90

00

120,

350

012

0,35

0

Ass

esse

d Va

lue

Tax

Year

Land

Dwel

ling

/ St

ruct

ure

Cur

rent

Us

e La

ndTa

xabl

ePe

rson

al

Prop

Tota

l V

alue

2016

18,0

0070

,800

088

,800

088

,80

Ass

esse

d Va

lue

$559

�based

�on�25�2�bed

room

�rentals�in�a�0.25

�mile�ra

dius�(4

/25/20

16)�

Prop

erty�ta

xes:�$1,261p

y�� If�Selling�Price�is�$1

50,000

,�and

�land

�value

�is�$14,400

�then

�hou

se�value

�is�$136,000.�

� Mon

thly�Ren

ts:�

https://www.re

ntom

eter.com

/results/exXzH

Z5Qod

w�

1422

�W�In

diana�Av

e�Spokane�–�3�be

droo

m�sho

ws�an�average�ren

t�of�

$768

�baseed�in�15�3�be

droo

n�rentals�in�a�0.25

�mile�ra

dius�(4

/25/20

16)�

1310

�W�Spo

fford�Ave,�S

pokane

,�WA�99

205�–�3�be

ds�

1.5�ba

th�

��

http://w

ww.zillow

.com

/hom

edetails/131

0�W�Spo

fford�Ave�

Spok

ane�WA�9920

5/23

5142

98_zpid/�

Upd

ated

�3�B

R/2�

BA�1

.5�story�b

ungalow�featurin

g�ne

wer�flooring�

througho

ut,�remod

eled

�bathroom

s,�light�and�

bright�living�

room

�featuring�bay�windo

w.�Large�kitche

n�with

�frid

ge,�D/W,�range�and�

hood

.�Spacious�m

aster�BR

�with

�attache

d�BA

.�Main�

floor�u

tilities.�

Fenced

�backyard�and�tw

o�car�de

tached

�garage.�Cen

trally�lo

cated�with

�easy�access�to�do

wntow

n�am

enities.�

� Spokane�Co

unty�Records:�

http://w

ww.spo

kane

coun

ty.org/pub

padal/P

arcelSum

mary.aspx�

Prop

erty�ta

xes�$

1,30

2.28

py�

� City�of�Spokane�Utility

�Charges.�M

arch�201

6�–�Re

fuse,�S

ewer,�W

ater�

$112

.46.�App

roximately�$1

,349

.52p

y.�

� Mon

thly�Ren

ts:�

https://www.re

ntom

eter.com

/results/exXzH

Z5Qod

w�

1310

�W�Spo

fford�Ave,�Spo

kane

�992

05�–�3�bed

room

�sho

ws�an�average�

rent�of�$8

11�based

�on�15

�3�bed

room

�ren

tals�

in�a�0.26�mile�radius�

(4/25/2016)�

� � � � � � �

Tax

Year

Land

Dwel

ling

/ St

ruct

ure

Cur

rent

Us

e L

and

Taxa

ble

Pers

onal

Pr

opTo

tal

Val

ue20

1614

,400

75,7

000

90,1

000

90,1

00

Ass

esse

d Va

lue

Tax

Year

Land

Dwel

ling

/ St

ruct

ure

Cur

rent

Us

e L

and

Taxa

ble

Pers

onal

Pr

opTo

tal

Val

ue20

1617

,000

76,0

000

93,0

000

93,0

00

Ass

esse

d Va

lue

22

Backgrou

nd�Ren

tal�D

ata��C

ity�of�Spo

kane

Num

ber�o

f�hou

sing�un

itsOwne

rPct.

Renter

Pct.

Total

Pct

Single�Unit

44,443

��

100%

15,948

�40

%60

,391

��72

%Tw

o�to�fo

ur�Unit

0%8,18

8��

21%

8,18

8��

10%

Five�plus�U

nit

0%15

,480

�39

%15

,480

��18

%44

,443

��

100%

39,616

�10

0%84

,059

��10

0%47

%

Num

ber�o

f�hou

sing�un

itsOwne

rPct.

Renter

Pct.

Total

Pct

Total�H

ousin

g44

,443

��

53%

39,616

�47

%84

,059

��10

0%

Age�of�Hou

sing

Age

Owne

rPct.

Rentals

Pct.

Total

1930

�and

�prio

rOver�8

5�years

6,66

6��

15%

10,696

��

27%

17,363

��

1931

�to�196

0Over�5

5�years

13,333

��30

%12

,677

��

32%

26,010

��

1961

�to�199

0Over�2

5�years

9,77

7��

22%

5,54

6��

14%

15,324

��

1991

�to�Current

Und

er�25�

years

14,666

��33

%10

,696

��

27%

25,363

��

44,443

��10

0%39

,616

��10

0%84

,059

��

Cond

ition

�of�h

ousin

gOwne

rPct.

Renter

Pct.

Total

Pct

Below�average

3,11

1��

7%6,73

5��

17%

9,84

6��

12%

Average

28,888

��

65%

25,750

�65

%54

,638

��65

%Ab

ove�Av

erage

12,444

��

28%

7,13

1��

18%

19,575

��23

%44

,443

��

100%

39,616

�10

0%84

,059

��10

0%

Popu

latio

n�De

mograph

ics

Popu

latio

nSpokane�

Coun

tyCity�of�

Spokane

Person

s�below

�poverty�line

76,910

��

42,201

��Est:�Ho

useh

olds�below

�poverty�line

30,764

��

17,584

��Est:�%�of�ren

tal�units�occup

ied�by�

househ

olds�und

er�poverty�line

44%

Popu

latio

n��484,318�

��212,067�

Per�capita

�income

26,235

��

24,848

��

Med

ian�ho

useh

old�income

50,249

��

43,694

��

Househ

old�income�un

der�$

50k

50.0%

55.0%

Person

s�below

�poverty�line

�%16.4%

19.9%

42,201

��

Poverty�Ch

ildren�(und

er�18)

20.0%

25.0%

Poverty�Seniors�(65

�and

�over)

9.0%

12.0%

Num

ber�o

f�hou

seho

lds

187,603

��85

,300

��

Person

s�per�hou

seho

ld2.5

2.4

Num

ber�o

f�hou

sing�Units

206,10

6��

95,947

��

Source:�https://censusreporter.o

rg/profiles/16000US

5367000�spokan

e�wa/

23

Househ

olds�and

�Ren

ters�below

�Poverty�Line

Owne

r�Occup

ied

44,443

��

Renter�in�poverty

17,584

��

44%

Renter

22,032

��84,059

��

Renters�b

elow

�Poverty

Owne

r�Occup

ied,��

44,443

�,�53

%

Renter,��

22,032

�,�26

%Owne

r�Occup

ied,��

44,443

�,�53

%Re

nter�in�

poverty,��

17,584

�,�21

%

,,

Econ

omics�o

f�Ren

ter�P

rope

rties Owne

rRe

nter

Total

Single�Unit

44,443

��

15,948

��

60,391

��

Two�to�fo

ur�Unit

8,18

8��

8,188

��

Five�plus�U

nit

15,480

��

15,480

��

Total�Ren

ter�P

rope

rties

44,443

��

39,616

��

84,059

��

53%

47%

�Ren

ter�

Prop

ertie

s�Av

ge�$

Total�$

Single�Unit

15,948

��

115,000

��1,83

4,02

0,00

0��

Two�to�fo

ur�Unit

8,18

8��

55,000

��

450,340,000

��

Five�plus�U

nit

15,480

��

50,000

��

774,000,000

��

Total�Ren

ter�P

rope

rties

39,616

��

3,058,360,000

��

City�Income

�Ren

ter�

Prop

ertie

s��Avge�/�y

r�Total/y

rAv

ge�/�

mth�

Total�/�yr

Total�/�yr

Single�Unit

15,948

��

2,000

��

31,896,000

��

100

��19,137,600

�51,033,600

��Tw

o�to�fo

ur�Unit

8,18

8��

750

��

6,141,000

��

50��

4,912,800

��11,053,800

��Five�plus�U

nit

15,480

��

750

��

11,610,000

��

50��

9,288,000

��20,898,000

��Total�Ren

ter�P

rope

rties

39,616

��

49,647,000

��

33,338,400

�82,985,400

��%�of�C

ity�2016�Bu

dget

6%4%

10%

Renter

�Avge�/�

mth�

Total�/�yr

Single�Unit

15,948

��

800

��

153,100,800

��

Two�to�fo

ur�Unit

8,18

8��

500

��

49,128,000

��

Five�plus�U

nit

15,480

��

500

��

92,880,000

��

Total�Ren

ter�P

rope

rties

39,616

��

295,108,800

��

%�of�C

ity�2016�Bu

dget

36%

1.7%

$�M

GDP�2008�City

�of�Spo

kane

17,640

��

Real�Estate�and�Re

ntal�and

�Leasing

2,041

��

12%

http://econp

ost.com

/gdp

/spo

kane�w

ashing

ton�gd

p�table�20

08

Prop

erty�Taxes

Utilities

Rental�income

Prop

erty�Value

s

24

Age�of�Ren

tal�Prope

rties

Constructio

n�year

�Ren

tal�

prop

ertie

s�%

1930�and

�prio

r10,696

��

27%

1931�to

�1960

12,677

��

32%

1961�to

�1990

5,546

��

14%

1991�to

�Current

10,696

��

27%

39616

100%

39,616

��

100%

Age�of�Ren

tal�Prope

ties

1930

�and

�prior,��10,69

6�,�

27%

1991

�to�

Curren

t,��

10,696

,27%

prior,��10,69

6�,�

27%

1931

�to�196

0,��

12,677

�,�32

%

1961

�to�199

0,��

5,54

6�,�14%

1991

�to�

Curren

t,��

10,696

�,�27

%

1931

�to�196

0,��

12,677

�,�32

%

1961

�to�199

0,��

5,54

6�,�14%

Cond

ition

�of�P

rope

rties�(as�defined

�by�City�of�Spo

kane

)Owne

rPct.

Renter

Pct.

Total

Pct.

Below�average

3,111

��

7%6,735

��

17%

9,846

��12%

Average

28,888

��65

%25

,750

��65

%54

,638

�65%

Above�Av

erage

12,444

��28

%7,13

1��

18%

19,575

�23%

44,443

��10

0%39

,616

��10

0%84

,059

�100%

Cond

ition

ofRe

nter

Prop

ertie

sCo

ndition

�of�R

enter�P

rope

rties

Below�

average,��

6,73

5�,�

17%

Above�

Average,��

7,13

1�,�

18%

17%

Average,��

25,750

�,�65

%

18%

25

Source:�h

ttp://www.bestplaces.ne

t/ho

using/city/w

ashington/spokane

��HOUSING

Spokane,�W

ashington

United�

States

��Med

ian�Ho

me�Ag

e��"T

he�average�age�of�h

omes�in�years.�U

pdated

:�Jun

e,�2014"

5437

��Med

ian�Ho

me�Co

st��"This�is�the�value�of�th

e�years�m

ost�recen

t�hom

e�sales�d

ata.�Its�impo

rtant�to�no

te�th

at�th

is�is�no

t�the

�average�(or�a

rithm

etic�m

ean).�The

�med

ian�ho

me�price�is�the�middle�value�whe

n�you�arrange�all�the

�sales�p

rices�of�h

omes�

from

�lowest�to�highest.�This�is�a�be

tter�indicator�than�the�average,�because�th

e�med

ian�is�no

t�changed

�as�m

uch�by�a�fe

w�

unusually�high�or�low�value

s.�Upd

ated

:�Jun

e,�201

4"$131,000�

$170,100�

��Hom

e�Ap

pr.�Last�1

2�mon

ths��"H

ouse�app

reciation��last�1

2�mon

ths�U

pdated

:�Jun

e,�201

4"0.70

%4.90

%��H

ome�Ap

pr.�Last�5

�yrs.��"H

ouse�app

reciation��last�5

�years�Upd

ated

:�Jun

e,�2014"

�15.50%

�4.60%

��Hom

e�Ap

pr.�Last�1

0�yrs.��"Ho

use�appreciatio

n��last�1

0�years�U

pdated

:�Jun

e,�2014"

31.30%

12.70%

��Prope

rty�Tax�Ra

te��"The�prop

erty�ta

x�rate�sh

own�he

re�is�th

e�rate�per�$1,000�of�hom

e�value.�If�th

e�tax�rate�is�$14.00�and�

the�ho

me�value�is�$250,000,�the

�prope

rty�tax�wou

ld�be�$14.00�x�($

250,000/1000),�or�$3500.�This�is�the

�'effe

ctive'�ta

x�rate.�U

pdated

:�Jun

e,�2014"

$12.32�

$12.07�

��Hom

es�Owne

d��"T

he�percentage�of�hou

sing�un

its�which�are�owne

d�by�th

e�occupant.�A

�hou

sing�un

it�is�a�ho

use,�

apartm

ent,�mob

ile�hom

e,�or�roo

m�occup

ied�as�se

parate�living�quarters.�Upd

ated

:�Jun

e,�2014"

52.78%

57.34%

��Hou

sing�Va

cant��"The�pe

rcen

tage�of�h

ousin

g�un

its�which�are�vacant�(un

occupied

).�A�ho

using�un

it�is�a�ho

use,�apartmen

t,�mob

ile�hom

e,�or�roo

m�occup

ied�as�se


ated

:�Jun

e,�2014"

7.41%

12.47%

��Hom

es�Ren

ted��"T

he�percentage�of�hou

sing�un

its�which�are�re

nted

�by�the�occupant.�A

�hou

sing�un

it�is�a�ho

use,�

apartm

ent,�mob

ile�hom

e,�or�roo

m�occup

ied�as�se


ated

:�Jun

e,�2014"

39.81%

30.19%

��AVE

RAGE

�REN

T�FO

R�HO

ME�OR�AP

ARTM

ENT

��Studio�Ap

artm

ent��"Average�re

nt�fo

r�studio�apartm

ent�U

pdated

:�Jun

e,�2014"

$470�

$661�

��1�Bed

room

�Hom

e�or�Apartmen

t��"Average�re

nt�fo

r�1�bed

room

�hom

e�or�apartmen

t�Upd

ated

:�Jun

e,�2014"

$574�

$765�

2B

dH

At

t"A

tf2b

dh

ttU

dtd

J2014"

$776

$957

��2�Bed

room

�Hom

e�or�Apartmen


nt�fo

r�2�bed

room

�hom

e�or�apartmen

t�Upd

ated

:�Jun

e,�2014"

$776�

$957�

��3�Bed

room

�Hom

e�or�Apartmen


nt�fo

r�3�bed

room

�hom

e�or�apartmen

t�Upd

ated

:�Jun

e,�2014"

$1,110�

$1,289�

��4�Bed

room

�Hom

e�or�Apartmen


nt�fo

r�4�bed

room

�hom

e�or�apartmen

t�Upd

ated

:�Jun

e,�2014"

$1,260�

$1,490�

��VAC

ANT�HO

USING

��Vacant�F

or�Ren

t��"Vacant�h

ousin

g��for�re

nt�Upd

ated

:�Jun

e,�2014"

2.83%

2.50%

��Vacant�R

ented��"V

acant�h

ousin

g��ren

ted�Upd

ated

:�Jun

e,�2014"

0.40%

0.46%

��Vacant�F

or�Sale��"V

acant�h

ousin

g��for�sa

le�Upd

ated

:�Jun

e,�201

4"1.10

%1.38

%��V

acant�S

old��"V

acant�h

ousin

g��sold�Upd

ated

:�Jun

e,�201

4"0.09%

0.46%

��Vacant�V

acation��"V

acant�h

ousin

g��seasonal,�recreatio

nal�or�o

ccasional�use�Upd

ated

:�Jun

e,�2014"

0.41%

3.81%

��Vacant�O

ther��"Va

cant�hou

sing��o

ther�Upd

ated

:�Jun

e,�201

4"2.56%

3.87%

��VALUE�OF�OWNER

�OCC

UPIED

�HOUSING

��Less�T

han�$20,000��"P

ercentage�of�Hom

e�Va

lues�less�th

an�$20,000.�U

pdated

:�Jun

e,�2014"

2.11%

3.30%

��$20,000�to

�$39,999��"Pe

rcen

tage�of�H

ome�Va

lues�between�$20,000�and�$39,999.�Upd

ated

:�Jun

e,�2014"

1.00%

3.44%

��$40,000�to

�$59,999��"Pe

rcen

tage�of�H

ome�Va


ated

:�Jun

e,�2014"

1.08%

4.18%

��$60,000�to

�$79,999��"Pe

rcen

tage�of�H

ome�Va


ated

:�Jun

e,�2014"

2.98%

5.80%

��$80,000�to

�$99,999��"Pe

rcen

tage�of�H

ome�Va

lues�between�$80,000�to�$99,999�Upd

ated

:�Jun

e,�2014"

6.46%

7.08%

��$100,000�to�$149,999��"P


e�Va

lues�between�$100,000�to

�$149,999.�Upd

ated

:�Jun

e,�2014"

28.22%

15.77%

��$150,000�to�$199,999��"P


e�Va


�$199,999.�Upd

ated

:�Jun

e,�2014"

23.09%

15.03%

��$200,000�to�$299,999��"P


e�Va


�$299,999.�Upd

ated

:�Jun

e,�2014"

21.76%

18.50%

��$300,000�to�$399,999��"P


e�Va


�$399,999.�Upd

ated

:�Jun

e,�2014"

6.93%

10.39%

��$400,000�to�$499,999��"P


e�Va


�$499,999.�Upd

ated

:�Jun

e,�2014"

3.11%

5.66%

��$500,000�to�$749,999��"P


e�Va


�$749,999.�Upd

ated

:�Jun

e,�2014"

2.24%

6.39%

��$750,000�to�$999,999��"P


e�Va


�$999,999.�Upd

ated

:�Jun

e,�2014"

0.67%

2.28%

��$1,000,000�or�m

ore��"P


e�Va

lues�greater�th

an�$1,000,000�or�m

ore.�Upd

ated

:�Jun

e,�2014"

0.36%

2.18%

��HOUSING�UNITS�BY

�YEA

R�STRU

CTURE

�BUILT

��2010�and�ne

wer��"2010�and

�new

er�Upd

ated

:�Jun

e,�2014"

0.16%

0.29%

��2000�to�2009��"2

000�to�2009�Upd

ated

:�Jun

e,�2014"

8.00%

14.18%

��1990�to�1999��"1

990�to�1999�Upd

ated

:�Jun

e,�2014"

9.52%

13.96%

��1980�to�1989��"P

ercentage�of�Hou

sing�Units�by�Structure�Bu

ilt�1980�to�1989.�Upd

ated

:�Jun

e,�2014"

8.16%

13.99%

��1970�to�1979��"P



ilt�1970�to�1979.�Upd

ated

:�Jun

e,�2014"

14.22%

16.09%

��1960�to�1969��"P



ilt�1960�to�1969.�Upd

ated

:�Jun

e,�2014"

9.52%

13.96%

��1950�to�1959��"P



ilt�1950�to�1959.�Upd

ated

:�Jun

e,�2014"

15.45%

11.05%

��1940�to�1949��"P



ilt�1940�to�1949.�Upd

ated

:�Jun

e,�2014"

9.83%

5.59%

��1939�or�Earlier��"Percentage�of�Hou


ilt�1939�or�Earlier.�Upd

ated

:�Jun

e,�2014"

28.23%

13.68%

26

�Profit��per�year�(after�

setting�aside�mon

ey�fo

r�structural�and

�equ

ipmen

t�repairs)�

�Cash�on

�Cash�return�per�

year��(no

�fund

s�set�asid

e�for�structural�rep

airs�or�

major�re

placem

ents)�

Prop

erty�Value

Average�price�of�a�hou

se120,000

��Loan

70%�of�p

rope

rty�value

70%

84,000

��

Building�Va

lue

Say�80

%80

%96

,000

��

Rent

Mon

thly�re

nt�sa

y850

��

10,200

$��

10,200

$��

Vacancy�Ra

te2.5%

(255)

$��

(255)

$��

Prop

erty�M

anagem

ent�F

ees

8%(816)

$��

(816)

$��

Taxes�P

rope

rty

Coun

ty�Prope

rty�Taxes

1,300

��

(1,300)

$��

(1,300)

$��

Taxes�U

tilities

�City

�Taxes�(Sew

er�Garbage)�n

ot�re

imbu

rsed

�by�te

nants�

700

��

(700)

$��

(700)

$��

Insurance

Insurance

500

��

(500)

$��

(500)

$��

Repairs��annu

al1%

�of�p

rope

rty�value

1%96

0��

(960)

$��

(960)

$��

Repairs��structural�re

pairs

�Rep

lace�hou

se�in�27�years�p

er�IR

S�tax�

guidelines�

27��

3,55

6��

(3,556)

$��

Interest�Rate

�Est�5%�re

paym

ents�on�bank�loan�

5%4,200

��

(4,200)

$��

(4,200)

$��

(Loss)�/�Profit�$

(2,087)

$��

1,469

$��

�(Loss)�/�Profit�on

�Prope

rty�Va

lue�

�1.74%

1.22%

Losses�are�sh

own�in�RED

Change�data�assumptions�in�th

ese�cells

�Based

�on�a�3�be

droo

m�single�family�hom

e�in�zipcod

e�99

205�(North�Cen

tral�Spo

kane

)�

Apartm

ent��2�bed

room

Profit�(LOSS)�/yr�

(after�providing�fo

r�long�te

rm�

replacem

ents)�

�Cash�on

�Cash�

return�

Prop

erty�Value

70,000

��Loan

70%�of�p

rope

rty�value

70%

49,000

��Bu

ilding�Va

lue

Say�80

%80

%56

,000

��Re

ntMon

thly�re

nt�sa

y600

��

7,200

��

7,200

��

Vacancy�Ra

te3%

(180)

��

(180)

��

Prop

erty�M

anagem

ent

8%(576)

��

(576)

��

Taxes

City�Taxes

2,000

��

(2,000)

��

(2,000)

��

Repairs��annu

al1%

�of�p

rope

rty�value

1%56

0��

(560)

��

(560)

��

Repairs��structural�re

pairs

Replace�ho

use�in�27�years

27�2,074

��

(2,074)

��

Interest�Rate

Est�5

%5%

2,450

��

(2,450)

��

(2,450)

��

(Loss)�/�Profit�$

(640)

��

1,434

��

�(Loss)�/�Profit�on

�Prope

rty�Va

lue�%�

�0.91%

2.05%

27


28

Intro to Spokane Neighborhood Longp g gTerm Rental Stakeholder group

Increasing the availability of healthy, safe and sustainable long-term rental housing improves the livability and economic viabilityimproves the livability and economic viability of the overall community.

u1

29

Neighborhood Stakeholder Presentation, April 26, 2016

Characteristics of a Great Neighborhoodginclude:

H i t f f ti l tt ib t th t t ib t t id t’ d t� Has a variety of functional attributes that contribute to a resident’s day-to-day living (i.e. residential, commercial, or mixed-uses)

� Accommodates multi-modal transportation (i.e. pedestrians, bicyclists, drivers)

� Has design and architectural features that are visually interesting

� Encourages human contact and social activities

� Promotes community involvement and maintains a secure environment� Promotes community involvement and maintains a secure environment

� Promotes sustainability and responds to climatic demands

� Has a memorable character

American Planning AssociationAmerican Planning Association

Neighborhoods Representedg p

� East Central – Ron Myers

� West Central - Sarah Tosch

E G fi ld J th M ti� Emerson-Garfield – Jonathan Martinez

� Chief Garry Park – Cathy Gunderson

� Hill d T S k� Hillyard – Tracy Swank

� Rockwood – Julie Banks

30

Top issues regarding rental housing in p g g gSpokane neighborhoods

1.Negative impacts of poorly maintained rental properties

Ab l dl d2.Absentee landlords

3.Transiency within neighborhoods

4.Lack of legal protection/recourse for neighbors

1. Negative impacts of the poorly1. Negative impacts of the poorly maintained rental properties

1.Health

2. Safety

3.Property value

4.Quality of life

31

1. Negative impacts of the poorlyg p p ymaintained rental properties

1 Health (CDC)1. Health (CDC)� Mold:

Triggers allergic responses

Triggers immune responses (asthma congestion eye irritation coughing runny noseTriggers immune responses (asthma, congestion, eye irritation, coughing, runny nose,infections, etc.)

� Cockroach infestations:

Triggers asthma and other respiratory conditions

� R t d i� Rats and mice:

Bites transfer parasites and disease

Feces transfer hantavirus

� Mosquitoes: spread a variety of diseasesq p y

� Lead: Respiratory diseases, brain damage and developmental disabilities – children are HIGHLY susceptible


2 Safety2. Safety� Injuries due to structural damage

� Plumbing

� Electrical burns, shocks, fires

� Lack of egress for emergency escapes and access

� Mounting piles of yard debris

32


3. Property valuep y� Neighborhoods that are littered (with solid waste) will soon start to

experience other problems, such as graffiti, unkempt rights-of-way and a general decline of the physical appearance in the area. Property values in littered neighborhoods can be lowered by as much as 15 percent. Source:g y pGwinnett Clean & Beautiful

� Neighbors with “annoying pets, unkempt yards, unpleasant odors, loud music, dangerous trees and limbs, or poorly maintained exteriors, can lower home values by more than 5 to 10 percent” according to the Appraisal Institute.

� 61% of code complaints for solid waste over the last two years were from renter occupied houses. Source: Spokane Office of Neighborhood Services

� 68% of zoning violation complaints (outdoor storage, yard sales, recreational camping home business regulations signs residential fencing setback areacamping, home business regulations, signs, residential fencing, setback area,accessory structures) over the last two years were from renter occupied houses. Source: Spokane Office of Neighborhood Services


l f l f4. Quality of life� Unsafe for children to play outside

� Inability to enjoy one’s yard

� Lack of sense of security in one’s home

� Loss of sense of community:

Social ties among neighborhood residents, often referred to as “bonding social g g , gcapital,” contributes to the likelihood that individuals will move beyond their diverse self-interests toward mutually beneficial collective actions.

When a group of neighbors informally keep an eye on one another's homes, that's social capital in action Harvard Kennedy Schoolsocial capital in action. Harvard Kennedy School

33

2. Absentee landlords

I bilit t t t ibl ti� Inability to contact responsible parties

� No oversight

� Delayed response to property issues

� Neighborhood erosion due to lack of accountability

� Owner = manager?

Of the 820 sites identified as apartments in the Spokane Fire Department’s permit system, about 42% of the owners do not live in the city. Source: Fire Marshal Mike Miller, Spokane Fire Department

3. Transiency within neighborhoodsy g

L t f i� Lots of moving

� Hard to get to know neighbors

� Loss of mutual trust between neighbors

� Lack of stability for children

� Loss of sense of neighborhood security and identity

34

3. Transiency within neighborhoodsy g

F t d t d l d hild t i di ti i� Frequent and unwanted moves lead children to experience disruptions inhome life or educational instruction. (Astone and McLanahan. 1994. Family Structure, Residential Mobility, and School Dropout: A Research Note.)

� The authors also speculated that residential mobility leads to a loss of social capital in children.

� Frequent (sic) residential mobility negatively affects education outcomes for low-income children and creates unstable school environments that adversely influence not only highly mobile children but their teachers and stableinfluence not only highly mobile children but their teachers and stable classmates as well. (Crowley, 2003. The Affordable Housing Crisis: Residential Mobility of Poor Families and School Mobility of Poor Children.)

4. Lack of legal protection/recourses for g pneighbors

O l il bl i fili l i t ith C d E f t� Only recourse available is filing a complaint with Code Enforcement

� Only addresses external issues

� Difficulty in identifying accountable party

� Fear of retaliation from filing complaint

35

Conclusion:

� The #1 gap in mitigating the top issues regarding rental housing for neighborhoods is ACCOUNTABILITYneighborhoods is ACCOUNTABILITY.

� It is unclear who to hold responsible for poorly maintained rental properties.

� Without a local contact for absentee landlords there is no ability to resolve issues with rental properties.issues with rental properties.

� Frequent movers in and out of neighborhoods diminishes social capital for all generations.

� Neighbors have no resources, beyond Code Enforcement, to remedy negative impacts.

� Neighbors need a process for mediation with tenants and/or landlords to mitigate negative impacts.

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49


50

Rental Housing Research Stakeholder Group Public Safety Committee

Project Materials Index All Project Materials below are available under Public Safety Committee at: https://my.spokanecity.org/neighborhoods/community‐assembly/standing‐committees/ Project Scope Stakeholder Group List Project Timeline Final Report to the Community Assembly Meeting Presentations 2016

July 28 – Review of Final Report Materials

July 19 – Discussion re forwarding body of work to Mayor’s Housing Quality Taskforce

June 14 – Issues and Existing Programs Discussion

May 10 – Tenant Stakeholder Presentation

April 26 – Neighborhood Stakeholder Presentation

April 12 – Survey Resources and Rental Housing Research/Connecting Issues with Potential Solutions

March 22 – Landlord Stakeholder Presentations. Disclaimer: The Landlord Stakeholder Presentation presented on March 22, 2016, contained language that characterized individuals and groups and was deemed offensive by some stakeholders. In response, the Landlords submitted an alternate version revising the language that was deemed offensive. At the July 28, 2016 stakeholder meeting, the stakeholders debated which version of the Landlord Stakeholder Presentation to forward to the Community Assembly. The stakeholders voted by majority to forward both versions and to include this disclaimer.

Landlord Stakeholder Presentation (Original Version)

Landlord Stakeholder Presentation (Revised Version)

February 23 – Rental Issues for Landlords and Tenants

January 12 – Spokane Low Income Housing Consortium Presentation 2015

November 10 – Spokane Fire Department Presentation

October 6 – Question Review and Discussion

September 1 – Building Department and Code Enforcement Presentation

August 4 – Spokane Regional Health District Presentation

July 7 – Spokane Police Department Presentation, Renter v. Owner Data and Maps

June 9 – General Renter v. Owner Data

May 26 – General Rental Housing Data

May 12 – Rental Housing Stakeholder Group Project Scope Meeting Minutes 2016

July 28

July 19

51

June 14

May 10

April 26

April 12

March 22

January 12 2015

November 10

October 6

September 1

August 4

July 7

May 26 Meeting Agendas 2016

July 28

July 19

June 14

May 10

April 26

April 12

March 22

February 23

February 9

January 12 2015

November 10

October 6

September 1

August 4

July 7 Additional Materials 2016

Landlord’s Rental Research Report

Just Cause Eviction Information Provided by Landlord Stakeholders

Just Cause Eviction Information Provided by Tenant Stakeholders 2015

Presentation Recap – December 2015

Rental Housing Recap – December 2015

Combined List of Stakeholder Note Card Questions

City of Spokane Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 2014 Update

Briefing Paper 2016‐06‐16

Stakeholder Survey Responses

Lead Testing Class Action Complaint

52

Documents

Spokane Neighborhoods Community Assembly