Addressing Affordable Housing in the City of Monroe, WA

Addressing Affordable Housing in the City of Monroe, WA. Model Ordinances, Funding Options and Innovative Approaches

Summary Report October 2019

Pietra Gaebel Legislative Research Consultant

Executive Summary…

elcome to the whitepaper, Addressing Affordable Housing in the City of Monroe ~ Model ordinances, Funding Options, and Innovative Approaches. The purpose of this white paper is to investigate both national and regional “Best Practices” model affordable housing ordinances for consideration by the City of Monroe, WA. The city approaches its affordable housing deficiency with gravity, recognizing how it responds to this crisis will shape the city’s quality of life and economic future. Highly impacted are the city’s very low- and low-income residents ~ those earning below 60% of the Average Median Income (AMI) and whose housing costs (mortgage or rent, plus utilities) demand more than 30% of their gross income.

This comprehensive white paper explores in detail, the multidimensional facets of affordable housing, such as affordable housing styles, lender and tax incentives, zoning, land acquisition, numerous specific examples of model city ordinances, funding sources, legislation, local city testimonies, and customized public outreach options.

It is the author’s hope that this whitepaper will aid the Mayor, City Council, Planning Commission and staff in making impactful policy decisions. The model codes in this report are in alignment with the Growth Management Act (link), the 2015 Monroe Comprehensive Plan and acknowledge the April 2018 Housing Snohomish County Project report objectives. Embedded links and alphabetical ordering of subjects are provided to offer more in-depth insights and easy reference.

The author presents a wide array of model ordinances from municipalities, both state- and nation-wide. She has researched numerous studies, interviewed government officials and city planners ― both in- house and externally, and consulted with housing-related associations, developers, lenders and nonprofits with the intention of presenting a balanced and diverse menu of options. Statistics and links have been updated with the most current data available.

The author would like to acknowledge the individuals who contributed their time and expertise to the draft review of this report: Chris Collier, Program Manager Alliance for Housing Affordability; Mark Smith, Executive Director Housing Consortium of Snohomish County; Chris Koch, City of Bellingham Planner II; Jim Hammond, City of Shoreline Intergovernmental and CMO Programs Manager; Chris Gray, President, Housing Hope Board of Directors; Mike Pattison, Senior Snohomish County Manager, Master Builders Association; Deborah Knight, Monroe City Administrator; Ben Swanson, Monroe Community Development Director; and Anita Marrero, Monroe Senior Planner. This project was completed over a period of 10 weeks, in tandem with a second whitepaper, No Place Like Home ─ Addressing Homelessness in Monroe, WA.

Researched, written and compiled by Pietra Gaebel, Legislative Research Consultant Professional Writing Services [email protected]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... 3 INTRODUCTION ─AFFORDABLE HOUSING ...... 5 Addressing Affordable Housing ...... 6 Monroe’s Affordable Housing Crisis ...... 8 Monroe’s Affordable Housing Goals ...... 12

CHAPTER 1 ― Model Affordable Housing Ordinances: Best Practices ...... 15 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) ...... 16 Affordable Housing Development Agreements ...... 20 Bonus Density and Inclusionary Zoning ...... 20 By-Right Approval Process ...... 24 Cluster Developments ...... 25 Compliance ...... 26 Condominiums ...... 29 Contaminated Land/Brownfields ...... 30 Cottage Homes ...... 32 Courtyard Apartments ...... 33 Covenants and Deed Restrictions ...... 34 Density Limits ...... 35 Design Codes ...... 36 Developmental and Physical Disabilities ― Housing Accommodations ...... 37 Duplexes ...... 38 Energy Efficiency ...... 40 Evictions ...... 42 Floor-to-Area Ratio (FAR)/ Floor Space Index (FSI) ...... 44 Form-Based Codes (FBCs) ...... 45 Height Restrictions ...... 50 Hotels and Motels ...... 51 Impact Fees ...... 52 Infill Development ...... 52 Land ...... 54 Acquisition of Land ...... 54 Donating or Selling Public Land ...... 56 Pooling of Lands ...... 57 Vacant Lands ...... 58 Municipal Land Banks ...... 60 Community Land Trusts (CLTs) ...... 61 Lender Incentives ...... 63 Local Businesses ...... 65 Manufactured Houses and Mobile Homes ...... 68 Missing Middle ...... 69 Mixed-Income Neighborhoods ...... 70 Mixed-Use (MU) Housing ...... 71 Multifamily Tax Exemptions (MFTE) ...... 73 Larger Unit Sizes ...... 75

The City of Bellingham’s Story: MFTEs ...... 76 Negotiable Incentives...... 77 Older Single-Family Housing ...... 78 Parking ...... 81 Permitting Priority ...... 85 Public Education ...... 86 Public Transportation...... 90 Retirement Centers ...... 94 SEPA Appeals ...... 95 Short-Term Vacation Rentals/ Airbnb’s...... 96 Sidewalks ...... 99 Pervious Sidewalks ...... 100 Single-Family Homes ...... 101 Small Lot Development...... 102 Stormwater Management ...... 103 Streets ...... 105 Tax Incentives...... 107 Tiny Houses ...... 111 City of Eugene, Oregon’s Story: Emerald Village Eugene (EVE) Tiny Home Community ...... 113 Townhomes...... 114 Urban Growth Area Annexations ...... 115 Waivers or Reductions of Fees or Standards ...... 116 Zoning ...... 117 The City of Bothell’s Story ...... 121 Chapter 2 ─ Innovative Approaches ...... 122 Create Dual Stakeholders by Donating Private Land to Cities ...... 123 Invest HB 1406’s Sales Tax Revenue ...... 123 Enhance Geographic Information System (GIS) Services ...... 123 Explore Corporate Funding of Affordable Multifamily Housing...... 124 Consider Innovative Construction ...... 125 Explore Limited Equity Cooperatives (LECs) ...... 126 Resell Bulk Purchases of Multifamily Units ...... 126 Workforce Housing ...... 126 The City of Mill Creek’s Story ...... 127 CHAPTER 3 ― Legislation ...... 128 Existing State Laws...... 129 New State Laws ...... 131 Landlord-Tenant Laws ...... 134 Chapter 4 ― Funding Opportunities ...... 136 Federal, State and Local ...... 137 Potential Partnerships ...... 138 Currently Active City Memberships ...... 138 Conclusion and Highlights ...... 139 Appendix: I. Monroe’s Affordable Housing Codes, Condensed; II. Negotiable Incentives; III. Funding Sources Explained; IV. Examples of “Tiny Home” Design Styles ...... 142 Sources ...... 158

INTRODUCTION

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Terms very day, cost-burdened tenants are displaced into streets or homeless shelters as they choose between Affordable Housing - In this paper, Eputting food on their tables or paying rent. Affordable housing “Affordable Housing” means housing that is has dominated the radar in the United States in reaction to affordable, with or without government factors such as skyrocketing land prices and restrictive zoning subsidies and grants, to residents earning regulations. 60% AMI and below. Housing costs, including utilities, account for 30% or less of gross Today, nearly two-thirds of renters nation-wide can’t afford to monthly income. (HUD definition) buy a home, the most important wealth-building tool for the middle and working class. And saving for their first down payment can be daunting, as home prices are rising at twice the HUD-Established AMI for FY2019 (Seattle- rate of wage growth. Bellevue, WA HUD Metro FMR Area) for Snohomish County (link) According to HUD, the Area Median Income Harvard researchers (AMI) is “…the midpoint of a region’s income found that in 2016, distribution ― half of families in a region nearly half of renters earn more than the median and half earn less were cost-burdened, than the median. For housing policy, income compared with 20 % in thresholds set relative to the area median 1960. So, it is not income― such as 50% of the AMI―identify surprising that nearly 11 households eligible to live in income- million Americans spend restricted housing units and the affordability almost half their of housing units to low-income households. paycheck on rent.

Bureau of Labor Statistics 2019 Cost-Burdened Those who pay more than 30% of their income for housing and may have difficulty affording food, clothing, transport and Addressing Affordable Housing healthcare. AMI for 4-person household in this area Affordable housing is at the forefront of many of Washington $108,600 State’s municipal agendas, as the sudden influx of large populations to the West Coast have far exceeded housing HUD-Based Snohomish County AMI for supply. More than 300 people migrate each day to this beautiful Monroe’s Average Household of 3, earning and economically flourishing state.1 But beauty has its price: 60% AMI and below Additional housing barriers such as exorbitant land costs, local 60% AMI: $59,820 zoning, land use regulations, tightening mortgage lending 30% AMI: $29,900

standards, and lengthy development approval processes have Income levels incapacitated the ability of many housing markets to keep up Middle Income: 80-95% of AMI with growing housing demand. Low-Income: 50-80% of AMI Very Low-Income: 50% or < less of AMI

Zoning Districts Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MN) Mixed-Use General (MG)

Downtown Commercial (DC) 1 Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) Multifamily Residential R25 (i.e., R25= 25 units/acre) Single-Family Residential R4, R7 and R15

Consequently, anything that makes development more costly will likely be passed on to tenants and property owners. In Snohomish County alone, both county rent and home sales prices have increased 40 to 50% between 2010 and 2018.1a Most housing Terms production in the county is for single-family homes, leaving a yawning lack of affordable housing for the lower-income Monroe Comprehensive Plan- population. This lack is driving labor migration away from the most A city’s official manual of goals and aspirations for community development productive metropolitan areas, increasing commutes up to three- which guides planning decisions under and four-fold for employees and ultimately congesting our roads the Washington State Growth and highways. At the same time, cities and counties are scrambling Management Act. to update 1970’s-era zoning codes and housing permit processes while striving to best-utilize existing infrastructure. Vacancy Rate- The percent of all residential units that are vacant at a Providing affordable housing in our communities helps to prevent particular time. displacement of hard-working citizens, reduces homelessness and Urban Growth Area (UGA)- An area optimizes the use of public and private lands and transportation. As designated within which urban (city) low-income housing allows employees to reside closer to their jobs, growth will be encouraged and outside commute time and traffic congestion are reduced on highways. of which growth can only occur if it is Affordable housing brings revenue to cities as residents live, shop not urban in nature. and invest financially in their communities. According to one study, every 100 affordable homes generates $2.4 million in community Unified Development Regulations income and supports 30 jobs each year.1b Consequently, affordable (UDR)- A compilation of city land use housing encourages geographic and socioeconomic stability in regulations, such as zoning. households. State Growth Management Act (GMA)- On the other hand, the lack of affordable housing in communities State law requiring state and local can have profound consequences. Homelessness is on the rise as governments to manage state growth more households are being displaced because they cannot afford to by identifying critical areas and natural pay escalating rents. At the same time, cities are losing valuable resources, preparing comprehensive resident-generated revenue as tenants move further away to attain plans, and implementing them through affordable housing. capital investments and development codes. Snohomish County Housing

“To afford an average one-bedroom apartment in Affordability Regional Taskforce Monroe, a resident would need to earn $35.84 an (HART)- Collectively identifies a 5-year hour.” plan to identify priorities for county and city governments to meet affordable National Low-Income Housing Coalition 2019 housing needs. Monroe’s Mayor Geoffrey Thomas is an active member.

* HART’s formal report and action plan will be completed and made available in December 2019.

1a Snohomish County Housing Affordability Regional Task Force (HART) 2018 1b The Housing Snohomish County Project Report (2018)

Monroe’s Affordable Housing Crisis See (link) for condensed summaries of Monroe’s current affordable housing codes, also in Appendix of this whitepaper. See (link) for complete HUD data sets.

Monroe is an urban, middle-income residential community of 19,363 Number of Households in people, with deficient affordable housing inventory, rising rents, and a Monroe by Income 2012-2016 strong out-commuter population. Currently, 73% of Monroe’s households Household Income <=30% AMI are families, and the aging senior 385, 15% population is expected to double by 740, 30% Household Income >30% 2 to <50% AMI the year 2035 from 2010. The city 615, 25% Household Income >50% currently has 415 affordable housing 740, 30% units available for approximately 2,075 to <80% AMI needy households, 3 accommodating Household Income >80% only one-fifth of Monroe’s cost- to <100% AMI Data courtesy of HUDuser.gov, 2012-2016 burdened population. Nearly half of the city’s households are cost-burdened.4 Approximately two-thirds of the city’s residential units are comprised of single-family homes, increasing the need for more types of affordable housing.

This analysis focuses on a target population of three-person households earning 60% or less of the HUD-based Average Median Income (AMI) for Snohomish County, Washington, which in this case is gross earnings of $59,820 and below. Three-person households represent the predominant household size in Monroe’s cost-burdened population, with an average household of 2.98 persons5. This is slightly larger than the average Snohomish County household size of 2.6. Therefore, the city may be particularly interested in increasing its number of two- and three-bedroom affordable housing units. The current average rent for a two- and three-bedroom apartment in Monroe ranges between $1,800 and $1,8506.

The City of Monroe’s policies support attractive development of affordable and functional mixed-use and mixed-income multifamily housing, concentrating near public transit to relieve congestion ― and to support a socio-economically thriving community. At the same time, the city is mindful that it could also help to maximize its affordable housing goals by renovating and preserving existing older properties.

The city’s vacancy rate for multifamily housing averages 3.45% since January, 2018; lower than the 2018 state’s rate of 4.3%7. The city and its unincorporated UGA have a total population capacity of 24,869, while the city’s projected growth rate through 2035 is estimated at 25,119. 8

2 Monroe 2015 Comprehensive Plan 3Housing Snohomish County Project 2018 - # needy households 4 Monroe 2015 Comprehensive Plan 5 American Community Survey 2017 6 Apartment. com 7 Washington State Apartment Market Report 8 Monroe 2015 Comprehensive Plan

To determine whether Monroe’s zoning will provide adequate population capacity, staff conducted a buildable lands analysis specific to proposed UDR zoning. The Planning Commission recommended the maximum residential densities for Monroe’s UDR zones. Their calculated capacities are summarized in the table, below.

Monroe’s 2018 Buildable Lands Report See (link)

Based on the number of privately owned, vacant and partially-developed lots comprising low, medium and high residential densities.

Based on the more comprehensive Monroe Buildable Lands Survey from which these figures were derived, the city of Monroe has the capacity to house 2,894 more Multifamily Residential (R25) residents. The city’s senior planner confirms these figures will meet demand for projected growth capacity and growth rate.

While limited land space is forcing the city to build upward and to rethink current ordinances, various options are being explored. These include rezoning, mixed-use and mixed-income multifamily housing, annexation, transactions of limited municipal lands, consideration of various affordable housing styles, and maintaining older single-family housing stock, among other things. All the while, the city is keeping in consideration how to best increase density while maintaining the community’s small-town feel.

Monroe currently addresses low- and very low-income needs with the following affordable housing stock, below. According to the second chart, Monroe’s 1989-2019 Housing Units by Style, the city has permitted approximately 4,848 new housing units during that time period, and 63% of these homes were single-family residences. For reporting purposes, there may be an overlap of market-rate and affordable housing units, as it is uncertain whether all affordable multifamily units were distinguished before 2013. Older market-rate complexes may have since been reassigned to affordable housing. Residential units older than 1989 are not counted in this graph. A separate graph for 2013-2019 housing construction is also included, to provide context of development.

Current Affordable Housing Stock for the City of Monroe 2019

Monroe's 1989 -2019 Housing Units by Style

0% 0% 0% 2% 20%

6% 9%

63 %

Market-Rate MF Housing 990 Affordable MF Housing 415 SF Homes 3,040 Tiny Homes 0 ADUs 5 Duplexes 279 Townhomes 12 Mobile Homes 107

Data for both charts are provided by the City of Monroe Permit Supervisor for number of permits received. Any buildings in Monroe with three or more units are considered Multifamily. ADUs were listed as single-family homes in Monroe until 2013.

Monroe's

2013-1019 Housing5% Units by Style 1% 0% 1% 26%

0% 42%

25%

Market-Rate MF Housing 419 Affordable MF Housing 415 SF Homes 685 Tiny Homes 0 ADUs 5 Duplexes 12 Townhomes 12 Mobile Homes 87

Monroe’s Affordable Housing Goals

For Chapter 6 Housing, Monroe’s Comprehensive Plan, see (link). In accordance with Washington State’s Growth Management Act (GMA) and the 2015 Monroe Comprehensive Plan (link), the city wishes to maintain its “small town” feel ― remaining compact and walkable, with a downtown commercial district transforming into a focal point of vibrant commercial, entertainment, dining, and cultural options ― potentially accompanied by mixed-use and mixed- income multifamily housing. The city’s Comprehensive Plan mirrors the nation-wide Smart Growth movement—to foster development which emphasizes compact, mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods. Monroe is dedicated to incorporating successful model ordinances and policies, and working with the community to address affordable housing.

According to the city’s Community Development Director, the municipality is considering creating zoning densities of R20 — about four stories with 20 residential units per acre — to maintain an intimate urban feel within an integrated housing plan.

Monroe’s Current Affordable Housing Complexes with Zoning Map Overlay. 4/19

Generously donated 7/2019 by FLO Analytics in cooperation with the Association of Washington Cities

The current Downtown Master Plan includes a single-family neighborhood and historically light- industrial pockets where the city has changed the zoning to allow multifamily projects, including mixed- use, office and retail. To incentivize development in these areas, Monroe provides reduced school, transportation, and park impact fees and water and sewer fees for first-time buy-ins.

The city also seeks to establish a broad range of affordable housing types, compatible with the current housing stock and within access to public transit stops.9 Incentives such as bonus densities, parking reductions, rezoning and various tax incentives are being discussed. The city has an opportunity for development in the Downtown Master Plan’s 50.4-acre area of Monroe― among the Downtown Commercial (DC), Mixed-Use (MU), Multifamily Residential (R25) and Single-Family Residential (R15) zoning districts.

To date, the city has made rapid progress toward obtaining its affordable housing goals. Monroe has recently revised its building codes, making turn-around time for housing permit processing faster than average, at approximately 4 weeks. The administration has just revised Monroe’s 2019 Unified Development Regulations (UDRs). And in order to monitor and enforce code violations more effectively, the city is currently requesting a Code Enforcement Officer staff position. At the same time, Monroe is considering annexation of unincorporated lands and seeks to sell the 8.4-acre North Kelsey parcel for Mixed-Use multifamily housing development.

The City is currently in the process of reviewing and revising the Affordable Housing chapter of the Monroe Municipal Code. Monroe’s officials are investigating state legislation which will facilitate affordable housing goals and add revenue for these purposes.

9 Monroe 2015 Comprehensive Plan

CHAPTER 1

MODEL AFFORDABLE HOUSING ORDINANCES:

BEST PRACTICES

Terms

odel Affordable Housing Housing Affordability Regional M Taskforce (HART) of Snohomish County 2018 Project Report Recommendations ______Ordinances: Best Practices Incentivize and reduce costs of affordable housing development and generate additional funding to build more income-restricted homes through the following KEY policies:

• Model City Codes • Reduce parking requirements for affordable housing ● Unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications, • Waive or reduce utility or the author connection and impact fees

• Recommendations from the 2015 Monroe • Require affordable housing in Comprehensive Plan developments near transit hubs

•Prioritize surplus public land for

affordable housing

• Establish specific goals in local housing elements

• Municipalities lend credit American cities are turning to “Best Practice” affordable housing codes support for affordable housing as examples of model legislation. These codes are supported by a loans significant body of research findings across a range of contexts, with general consensus among community experts that these practices are HART Recommendations for 10 superior or state-of-the-art. Numerous municipalities are implementing Additional Funding these innovative laws. • Pass a county-wide housing levy

The following “Best Practice” model ordinances are provided for • Pass the second 1/10th of 1% consideration, below. The author was asked to provide as many diverse sales tax increase ordinances as possible. Subjects are organized alphabetically, for quick reference. • Issue general obligation bonds for affordable housing

• Allocate a portion of new construction property tax 10 University of Tennessee Municipal and Technical Advisory Service revenue for affordable housing

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)

Addressing ADUs is at the top of many municipal agendas as a cost- saving alternative to larger single- family homes. ADUs are separate, small residential units built on the same property as the main single-family residence. ADUs can be a converted, attached or detached garage or barn, a part of a house such as a basement, an apartment above a garage or barn, or a newly constructed unit, separate from the main house. Elderly and disabled persons, young people just joining the workforce, residents with low and moderate income, and empty nesters find ADUs affordable and convenient. ADUs facilitate intergenerational living arrangements and allow more seniors to age in place, something nearly 90% of older Americans desire for themselves and their families. Incentivizing owners of older Image Courtesy of St. Paul, MN. housing to maximize land use with ADUs could create a permanent increase in affordable housing stock without requiring additional land purchases. Cities like Portland, Santa Cruz, and San Diego have called for changes to allow more ADUs.

ADUs in Washington State have been a popular option, since the 1993 Washington Housing Policy Act required cities or jurisdictions with populations more than 20,000 people to adopt ordinances which encourage the creation of ADUs in single-family zones. This housing style also helps cities to meet requirements of the Growth Management Act.

The City of Monroe addresses ADUs in its municipal code and is open to considering further legislation.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Require minimum square footage: studios 250 sq. feet, 3 bedrooms 1,200 sq. feet. Cape Cod Commission of Affordable Housing Strategies, “Best Practices Toolkit”

▪ Allow ADUs in single-family neighborhoods. ADUs are not considered to be affordable housing and therefore are not eligible for affordable housing exemptions and regulations under the city’s Land Use Code (20. 20. 120). City of Bellevue, WA.

▪ Permit ADUs in all residential districts, subject to certain requirements and limitations. (18. 04. 060) City of Olympia, WA.

▪ Allow provision for more efficient use of a larger home by allowing a limited number of rental rooms (without independent kitchen facilities). The code apparently is no longer in effect, but offers an example. (Community Development Guide Sec. 20C. 30. 80) City of Redmond, WA.

▪ Incentivize the development of accessory dwelling units and housing for moderate- to low-income households by offering impact fee exemptions. (3. 36. 055) City of Woodinville, WA.

▪ Increase the maximum number of dwelling units on a single-family lot to three (one primary, one attached ADU, and one detached ADU). Seattle City Council is considering.

▪ Remove the requirement that the property owner must occupy either the primary or accessory unit. City of Seattle, WA.

▪ Permit ADUs only in certain residential zones. The City of Bellingham allowed only attached ADUs in residential zones, between 1995 and 2009. Detached ADUs were further allowed in 2009, but limited to zones permitting multifamily residential development. As of 2018, both attached and detached ADUs are allowed city-wide in all zones that allow residential development.(20. 28. 100) City of Bellingham, WA.

▪ Allow only basements with walk-out capabilities to be converted into living space. Garage parking stalls can be converted if an efficient and cost-effective method for heating and other utilities is demonstrated. Cape Cod Commission

▪ ADUs must have similar siding and windows compatible with the existing home; either the primary unit or the ADU must be owner-occupied. An affidavit attesting to owner occupancy for all ADUs is required January 1 of every odd-numbered year; ADU must not exceed 66% of gross sq. footage of primary residence, or 800’, whichever is more restrictive; no more than two bedrooms in an ADU; one additional parking space must be provided on-site for ADUs, unless application for parking waiver is approved by the Director; A maximum of (4) people may occupy the ADU. For detached ADUs, maximum height of 20’, with minimum setback of 5’ from side and rear yards, except 0 feet in alleys. City of Bellingham, WA.

▪Allow (2) ADUs on one lot, and no requirement for off-street parking. Homeowners not required to live on the lot containing an ADU. Increases maximum ADU size from 800 square feet to 1,000, and slightly increases the allowable height. Set floor-area ratio (FAR) limit in single-family zones to .5 — for example, a single-story house could only have a footprint of half the lot. Up to 250 square feet of garage won’t count against FARs; neither will up to 35 square feet of dedicated bike parking. Houses

already existing on the lot can just one time, expand up to 20% past the limit, so as not to step on planned remodels. Basements don’t count. City of Seattle, WA.

▪ Increase maximum height for accessory structures from 16 feet to 24 feet. City of Olympia, WA.

▪ Allow any ADU to have up to 800 square feet, regardless of primary house size. City of Olympia, WA.

▪ Do not require an additional off-street parking stall if there are two off-street parking spaces on the lot. City of Olympia, WA.

▪ Eliminate setback requirements for garage conversions. Reduce parking requirements for ADUs in a historic district, a half-mile from transit, or near a car-share area. Detached ADUs can be no larger than 1,200 square feet. ADU requests in compliance can become permitted within 120 days of receipt of application, without the need for a public hearing. State of California 2017

▪ In preparation for Monroe’s increasing population, abide by the 1993 Washington Policy Act, which requires cities with populations of 20,000 or greater to adopt ordinances which encourage the creation of ADUs in single-family zones.

▪ More ADU Provisions from Washington State Cities.

Click for larger version Image courtesy of MRSC.org

▪ Modify energy efficiency standards to accommodate smaller sized housing, like ADUs, cottages and tiny homes.

▪ Limit parking for short-term rentals.

▪ Create ADU codes for single-family homes and consider other structures that could accommodate ADUs, such as churches for their pastoral staff.

▪ Require each floor (basement, attic or second story) to be no greater than half the total square footage of the property, if an attached ADU has a square footage limit. Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties (MBA)

▪ Allow only long-term rentals on two-year leases for ADUs, rented to non-family members. MBA

▪ Allow flexibility of two -story ADUs with 1,000 or 1,500 square feet. MBA

▪ Do not require the garage’s square footage to be counted as livable space, if the ADU is above it. MBA

▪ Allow increases to ADU square foot size limits (compared to standard 800 square foot max) to provide more flexibility.

▪ Consider a less costly alternative than “backyard cottages” and allow construction on either side of the house, as well.

▪ Allow two ADUs per single-family home lot.

▪ Employ Monroe’s GIS aerial imagery to locate unreported ADUs in order to track and apply permit fees and property taxes, if codified.

▪ Expand regulations to permit detached ADUs, which are usually required to be placed in the back half of a residential lot.

▪ Consider that most local ADU codes have standards to address the following: max unit size; owner occupancy; dedicated off-street parking; attached ADUs only; max number of dwelling units on one lot; separate entrances - only one visible from the street; other design standards for items s such as roof pitch, exterior material, and window style; max number of occupants; minimum lot size; and building code. MRSC and Association of Washington Cities

▪ Require year-round use, deed-restricted.

▪ Prohibit ADUs from industrial zones.

▪ Reduce or eliminate on-site parking requirements for ADU occupants in areas of adequate on-street parking.

▪ Disallow ADUs in buildings less than 5 years old and on lots less than 20,000 sq. feet.

Affordable Housing Development Agreements

Development agreements are contracts negotiated between a developer and a local jurisdiction to specify the terms by which a proposed project moves forward. They can also formalize an arrangement in which the developer provides certain public benefits (i.e., affordable housing) in exchange for certain concessions by the jurisdiction (i.e., regulatory flexibility, density bonuses).

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Encourage construction of 3+ bedrooms for affordable and market-rate housing to meet the special housing needs of the city.

▪ Mandate a written development agreement between the local government and the developer, with detailed commitments of both parties before issuing the building permit for any units. The agreement could outline the commitments of both parties, including cash in-lieu payments, adherence guidelines for public benefits and specific exchanges for concessions.

Bonus Density and Inclusionary Zoning

Refer to the City of Monroe’s Development Incentives (18.74.030) for the city’s affordable housing density bonus matrix.

Inclusionary zoning is a popular municipal approach to achieving affordable housing goals. State law RCW 36. 70A. 540 allows cities to mandate inclusionary zoning – a practice which requires a share of new construction to be allotted to affordable housing for low- to moderate-incomed residents. This must be provided by all new developments in areas where the city or county decides to increase residential capacity, or the developer could be required to make payment for construction of such units elsewhere in the community.

Not only do such policies expand the availability of affordable housing without expanding lot sizes or relying on tax payer funds; they allow for new development which otherwise might have been locally opposed. Some cities keep target income (AMI) ranges for prospective households. This practice has

also been shown to improve educational outcomes for low-income children gaining access to higher- performing schools. Bonus density is the most common form of incentive used by inclusionary housing programs. This bonus provides an increase to developers in allowed dwelling units per acre (DU/A), Floor Area Ratio (FAR) or height, which generally means that more affordable housing units can be built on any given site. In the case of affordable housing, if a developer agrees to build and rent a certain percentage of his market-rate units at affordable housing rates, the developer may supersede current density limits to a particular extent and build beyond the original unit maximum.

There are usually time periods set by cities as to how long designated units must remain affordable. On the “con” side, it may be difficult to monitor whether the designated dwelling units are remaining affordable. Cities could lose significant affordable housing, as well as substantial property tax revenues from noncompliant recipients of 12-year Multifamily Tax Exemptions (MFTEs) and landlords who switch from affordable to market-rate housing before their affordability status expires. Reliable reporting and tracking methods could be set in place to deter this.

The City of Monroe is open to exploring various approaches to bonus densities.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Allow a bonus market rate unit for each affordable unit provided. Up to 15 % above the maximum density permitted in the underlying zoning district. In exchange for the inclusion of affordable units, offer flexibility in certain regulations such as lot coverage, building height, and lot area. (LUC 20. 20. 128) City of Bellevue, WA. ▪ Offer a FAR density bonus in exchange for public benefits, specifically affordable housing. For rental properties affordable to households at 80 % AMI, grant 4.6 square feet in bonus building area per square foot of affordable housing. (20. 25D. 090. C) Bel-Red District, City of Bellevue, WA.

▪ Create a demonstration program that offers a 50% density bonus if 100% of units are “provided and retained as permanently affordable owner-occupied homes”. (20.27.030F) City of Bellingham, WA.

▪ Offer density bonuses ranging from 1-1. 5 bonus units per benefit unit; for 100% affordable projects, the density allows 200% above the base. (Code 21A. 34) King County, WA.

▪ Define “rental affordable housing” as dwelling units affordable to those with incomes at or below 50% of King County’s median income. City of Federal Way, WA.

▪ Allow a bonus market rate unit for each affordable unit provided. Up to 15 % above the maximum density permitted in the underlying zoning district. (20. 20. 128) City of Bellevue, WA.

▪ Offer flexibility in certain regulations such as lot coverage, building height, and lot area in exchange for the inclusion of affordable units. (LUC 20. 20. 128) City of Bellevue, WA.

▪ Require all developments and commercial and office zones with more than four units to provide some affordable units. Bonus units as an incentive are an option amongst zones where affordable units are not required. (23. 112) Applicable developments must provide at least 10 % of units as affordable. Developers have the option to submit payment in-lieu of construction for portions of the required affordable housing units (when less than .66 units). The affordable housing units should be no more than 10 % smaller than the market rate units, unless otherwise approved. (112. 15, 25. 10. 010, 211. 112. 35) City of Kirkland, WA.

▪ Codify inclusionary zoning and minimum affordability requirements for all developments with at least four or more new residential units in commercial, high-density residential, medium density, and office zones. Applicable developments must provide at least 10 % of units as affordable. Developers have the option to submit payment in-lieu of construction for portions of the required affordable housing units (when less than .66 units). The affordable housing units should not be more than 10 % smaller than the market-rate units, unless otherwise approved. (112. 15, 25. 10. 010, 211 112. 35) City of Kirkland, WA.

▪ Offer residential density bonus incentives for permanently restricted, low-income rental units and low-income senior rental units. Make this available to mobile homes displaced from closed parks. (22C. 090) City of Marysville, WA.

Source: Hickey, Sturtevant and Thaden (2014). See (link) for an online directory of these programs

▪ Require developments containing more than one building with multifamily housing units to distribute affordable units equally throughout all buildings, to prevent the segregation and concentration of low-income residents in one area of the development. (4-1-220 C1e) City of Renton, WA.

▪ Apply mandatory inclusionary zoning requirements to even single-unit projects with alternative means of compliance offered. (Revised Code Ch. 9-13). City of Boulder, CO.

▪ Offer density bonuses to compact single-family and cottage house developments, in addition to the density bonuses granted to specific high-density developments. (19. 250. 150) City of Federal Way, WA.

▪ Rezone 99% of single-family lots to allow higher-density duplexes. City of Vancouver, WA.

▪ Eliminate all single-family zoning to allow duplexes city-wide. City of Minneapolis, MN.

▪ Require a minimum of 10% affordable housing. City of Redmond, WA.

▪ Use a sliding scale, based on the affordability level of the provided housing units. Developers also use the city’s affordable housing “bonus pool” to produce more market-rate and affordable dwelling units. City of Sammamish, WA.

▪ Require higher-density developments, such as multifamily housing, older adult housing, townhouse developments, or mixed-use developments with 25 units or more to include affordable units. City of Federal Way, WA.

▪ Prohibit affordable housing units from being smaller than comparable dwelling units in the same development, based on the number of bedrooms, or less than 500 Square feet for a 1- bedroom unit, 700 feet for a 2-bedroom unit, or 900 feet for a 3-bedroom unit, whichever is less. (112. 35) City of Kirkland, WA.

▪ Allow a fee-in-lieu payment only for portions of affordable units that are less than 0.66 units. 0.66 is consistently established in the Kirkland Zoning Code as the rounding point for multifamily units. Allowing a fee-in-lieu only for fractions of units that are less than 0.66 will encourage the construction of actual affordable units in the city. Recommended by City of Kirkland, WA.

▪ Codify SB 1377 provisions and notify local faith-based entities. The bill requires increased bonus density for affordable housing developments built on properties owned by religious organizations.

▪ Require developers not wanting to build affordable housing units in their multifamily housing complexes to pay $18/square foot (or recommended price) for 20% or more of their non-affordable housing units. The moneys are to be deposited into a specified Affordable Housing Fund, separate from the General Fund.

▪ Include inclusionary zoning in all complexes with 25 or greater units which receive public funding, such as tax abatements, Tax Increment Finance (TIF), and height and density bonuses. Recommended by the Pittsburgh Affordable Housing Task Force.

▪ Require affordable housing units provided under MFTE to remain in such status for a minimum of 50 years from the date of initial owner occupancy.

▪ Increase zoning height restrictions to above 45’ for multifamily complexes accommodating affordable housing.

By-Right Approval Process

A zoning code is considered “by-right” if the approval process is streamlined so that compliant projects receive their approval without a discretionary review process.

Housing advocates and developers claim that discretionary review processes are contributing to housing crises across the country by increasing the cost and delivery rate of housing. The by-right review process enables developers to know all requirements before they begin the design process, creating a more accurate pro forma to determine a project’s viability. They will also only have to design the building once, saving the cost of multiple redesigns. The reported lower cost and risk of multifamily housing development under a by-right process could contribute to increased construction at lower cost to developers. Residents and communities, however, may be wary of by-right zoning because it often seems that the discretionary review process is their only tool to prevent inappropriate and out-of-scale development. The City of Monroe employs a mostly by-right and some discretionary review process.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Adopt Right of First Refusal codes for privately owned multifamily housing, allowing jurisdictions to be first offered the right to acquire the property by matching the market-based price negotiated by the owner and the third party. PLAN-Boulder County, Boulder, CO.

Cluster Developments

Cluster developments allow houses to be closer together on a site. The houses are usually located around an amenity or green space. This green space tends to be optimized because the often-smaller housing units take up less space, thereby preserving or increasing green space. Cluster developments frequently use “lot size averaging”, a useful tool for cities seeking to create a diverse, higher-density housing stock or in areas with unusually-shaped properties. This practice permits individual lots within a development to be smaller than normally allowed, as long as the average size of all lots combined does not exceed the maximum allowed density. City of Mill Creek, WA. cluster developments

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Zoning policies allow for cluster and short subdivisions in order to encourage a diversity of housing types. (17. 26) City of Auburn, WA.

▪ Cluster or short subdivisions are permitted in certain zoning districts in part to increase the opportunity for the development of affordable housing without increasing the development’s overall density. (12. 04. 264) City of Kent, WA.

▪ Encourage affordable housing by allowing maximum allowable density on smaller lots. These cluster developments can include, but are not limited to, zero lot line units, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and manufactured homes. (18. 07. 420). City of Issaquah, WA.

▪ Implement Cluster Zoning: Density for an entire area rather than for a lot. MBA

▪ Implement R15 per acre for cluster zoning. MBA

▪ Permit lot size averaging to allow for smaller lots and to use space more efficiently.

Compliance

Effective monitoring of properties for compliance, constructional maintenance, collection of fees and fines, and tenant turnover, etc., is monumental in preserving city revenue and existing properties, as well as incentivizing potential developers. A common problem in local governments is insufficient funding to support staff to oversee compliance.

Another significant concern is compliance to maintenance and preservation standards. Units can fall into disrepair, landlords may opt out of the rental assistance voucher program, or owners may convert rental units into ownership units. Expiring affordability covenants, lack of preservation by owners, and risk of redevelopment all should be regularly monitored.

Consistent code enforcement improves a neighborhood’s look and feel, enhances safety, and boosts confidence from the community and potential investors, while derelict housing and vacant commercial spaces can decrease the value of adjacent properties. Neglected properties repel potential homebuyers, and drive away renters and businesses looking to relocate to the area. Local governments can help code enforcement efforts by working with neighborhood associations to identify neglected properties. Some property owners might forsake home maintenance due to economic hardships, and qualify for repair assistance.

Cities could also take legal action, such as assessing tax liens for cleanup, or applying fines when property owners fail to fix code violations. In some neighborhoods, cities may acquire vacant properties and assemble them into larger parcels to make them available for redevelopment. This work is often carried out through land banks, described in this paper. Other municipalities have worked to turn these neighborhoods back into open space or park lands rather than encourage future infill development.

The city’s 2020 budget includes funding for a full-time Code Enforcement Officer staff position. Currently, the City of Monroe’s affordable housing complexes are monitored for compliance by their managing nonprofit affordable housing organizations, such as Housing Hope.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Require at least every 2 years, Planning and Building Departments to submit a report which tracts the use of regulations to the City Council. (112. 40) City of Seattle, WA.

▪ Act as a facilitator between affordable housing groups and property owners. (3. 2. 7) City of Tukwila, WA.

▪ Codify fair housing practices and corresponding penalties for violation in its city code (9. 20. 030). Beyond the various classes assured equal access to housing by federal and state fair housing laws, this code out-laws discrimination against Section 8 status and requires reasonable accommodation for handicapped individuals. (9. 20. 043) City of Bellevue, WA.

▪ Require owners to pay relocation assistance to displaced low-income tenants living in units when housing units are demolished or substantially rehabilitated. (9. 21) City of Bellevue, WA.

▪ Require landlords to be licensed by the city, make inspections of their units performed by a private inspector of the property owner’s choosing, and furnish the city with a certificate of inspection verifying their units meet applicable building codes. City of Lakewood, WA. * The State Landlord Tenant Act of 2010 authorizes cities to require certificates of inspection from landlords and that cities adopt a rental inspection/licensing ordinance which complies to statute guidelines.

▪ Implement a residential rental business license and inspection program, which aims to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare by ensuring proper maintenance of rental housing, identifying and requiring correction of substandard housing conditions, and preventing conditions of deterioration and blight. (5. 06) City of Tukwila, WA.

▪ Stipulate all affordable housing created in mandatory zones include an Affordable Housing Agreement which must be recorded with the County Recorder’s Office prior to the issuance of a building permit and create a covenant with the land that is binding to heirs and successors. The Agreement shall establish price restrictions, tenant qualifications, and expire after a minimum of 99 years. (20. 40. 235) City of Shoreline, WA.

▪ If relocation assistance is mandated, require reference of this mandate in the landlord-tenant contract.

▪ Create automatic city-wide online tracking of expiration dates of complexes’ affordable housing deed restrictions.

▪ Require annual online reports from affordable housing and mixed-income complexes, detailing each complex’s counts of both affordable housing and market-rate units, their respective rents, and annual revenues, in order to maintain compliance of affordability and to minimize lost property MFTE tax revenue and unmerited bonus densities.

▪ Compile a list of suggested revenue for housing trust funds. Recommend at least 50% of trust-funded housing units be held affordable for 99 years or the life of the building. The Pittsburgh 2016 Affordable Housing Task Force ▪ Establish specific purposes for trust funds, and create a monitoring Trust Fund Governing Board and Advisory Board. For more guidance, see page 21 of the Pittsburgh 2016 Affordable Housing Task Force Report.

▪ Appoint a Governing Board to monitor community land trust activities separate from the General Fund. When one city lost 4 million dollars after it was inadvertently put into its General Fund, it created a separate trust fund to protect those resources.

▪ Provide annual compliance training to multifamily housing developers and owners regarding how city regulations apply to their properties.

▪ Require affordable housing recipients provide official record of local residency for a minimum of six months. A policy at Monroe’s new Rivers Edge Apartments

▪ Require all affordable housing developments to conduct specific mandatory vetting of tenant applicants to confirm “hidden” tenant income such as pensions, VA benefits, Medicaid, SSI and other income sources. This screening can be included in tenant housing applications.

▪ Codify a prerequisite that any newly implemented ordinance for new affordable housing will not affect developers who have already been approved and begun the building process. Mid-stream changes in city codes can significantly alter investors’ expected returns and their trust in city administration.

▪ Mandate that owners who fail to provide a timely complete annual certification and reporting criteria are non-compliant. This is to be recorded on their IRS certification (IRC 42) and reported to the IRS.

▪ Write code that issues daily late fees for each complex’s affordable housing document which surpasses submission deadlines.

▪ Require all multifamily housing construction to be completed within a set period of time, based on square footage and number of units, or a $50 per-unit daily fee is charged, which will be deposited into the city’s designated Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

▪ Mandate a claw-back provision requiring all construction must be completed within two years of the date permitting has been approved, or daily fines accrue.

▪ Include in MFTE development agreements detailed daily retroactive fines per unit for property owners who violate the city’s minimum time requirement for affordability.

Condominiums

Condominiums are similar to apartments, but are independently sellable and therefore regarded as real estate. They are an appealing type of home ownership which protects residents against displacement and enables families to build equity wealth while optimizing scarce 11 land. Condos cost, on average, 44% less than single-family homes. Canoe Club Condominiums, Monroe, WA. Regularly, these housing styles serve as dwellings for younger adults and retirees. Until recently, condo law required condominiums to adhere to stringent requirements which ultimately required excessive liability insurance. Consequently, condo production has slowed considerably: between 2012 and 2017, less than 3% of all new dwellings were condos12.

New 2019 legislation in SB 5334 Condominium Act Reform changes the implied warranties associated with condominium development, so there could be fewer lawsuits. However, local government officials feel the regulation did not change the key liability requirements, and therefore a threat of lawsuits remains.

The City of Monroe has no ordinances addressing condominiums.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Notify buyers about purchase responsibilities and costs and organize and document the conversion process. (22. 903) City of Seattle, WA.

▪ When existing apartment units are converted to condominiums, require payment to tenants who don’t buy their units (relocation assistance).

▪ Require the units be inspected by a city inspector, make any needed housing code repairs, and certify and warrant those repairs before the units are put on sale.

▪ Give tenants the right to buy their own unit and require 120 days' notice to tenants who must move out.

11 Zillow 12Sightline.org

Contaminated Land/ Brownfields

Brownfields are sites, often vacant or underutilized, which may be perceived to be contaminated. They may be old industrial sites or commercial sites, such as gas stations and dry cleaners. The real or perceived environmental contamination complicates expansion or redevelopment because of testing and clean-up which may be necessary to ensure the safety of the site, as well as potential liability even after remediation. However, recent changes in federal law relating to liability have improved opportunities for state and local governments to reuse brownfields. Residents may benefit from the removal of hazards, and unsightly parcels may possibly be used for affordable housing developments.

Federal incentives for private investment in brownfields redevelopment include the Community Reinvestment Act, Industrial Development Bonds, Rehabilitation Tax Credits, and tax-deductible land donations. In 2018, the Washington Legislature provided an additional $1 million for Integrated Planning Grants to be used for affordable housing projects. These are flexible grants that local governments can use to support pre-construction cleanup activities, including planning, investigation, community involvement, education, and outreach. An example of a funding recipient is the City of Kennewick – awarded $200,000 to redevelop an approximately 10-acre former maintenance yard into the Kennewick Housing Authority Multifamily Housing Complex with 110 units.

At this point, the City of Monroe has no identified brownfields. This information, however, could be useful for brownfields which could be identified in the future.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Contain a claw-back provision which allows the government to rescind tax credits given to the developer, should he or she break the original contractual commitment. Michigan State Housing and Development Authority

▪ Create a long-term brownfield compliance ordinance, which would ensure the property remained utilized and free from contamination over the long term. Michigan State Housing and Development Authority

▪ Allow contaminated land to be purchased without liability, provided the new property owner establishes that they are not responsible for the contamination. Among other things, the buyer must participate in a Baseline Environmental Assessment (BEA) that proves they did not contaminate the land prior to or within 45 days of owning the property. State of Michigan Brownfield Law

▪ Garner revenues from Tax Increment Financing (TIF). This can be used to help reimburse developers for the remediation process. The tax increment bonds are paid off from increases in property taxes 13 created by the redevelopment. State of Michigan Brownfield Law

▪ Actively identify brownfields in the city and pursue funding for restoration and potential affordable housing. Work with private and nonprofit owners of brownfields to access federally funded clean-up programs so land could be utilized.

▪ Mandate that all brownfield real estate in the city that has been treated by Washington State clean-up funding be labeled as “No longer contaminated”.

▪ Mandate all identified brownfields in Monroe’s jurisdiction provide documentation of decontamination, as well as declare future property intentions, within one year of notice.

▪ Encourage state legislation to fully fund its state brownfield clean-up account through the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) (codified 1989 and last amended 2013), which governs brownfield clean- up and prevention.

13 At the time of this writing, the State of Washington does not implement TIF laws. This ordinance is nevertheless, presented, should such state legislation be enacted in the future.

Cottage Homes

Cottage housing is generally defined as a grouping of small, single- family dwelling units clustered around a common area and developed with a coherent plan for the entire site. It is similar to a cluster development in many ways, but is slightly different in that it is used as a type of infill development in areas that are already medium or high density. Most are sold in condominium-style ownership14.Several Puget Sound cities have adopted or are considering adoption of codes to allow construction of cottage houses in respective zones. These units can be expensive to build. An average 800-square-foot cottage costs $200,000, but allows more affordability for retiring seniors who wish to downsize or stay in the area.

The City of Monroe has no ordinances addressing cottage homes at this time.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Define a cottage as a detached, single-family dwelling unit containing 1,500 square feet or less of gross floor area. City of Kirkland, WA.

▪ Allow two cottages to be attached. City of Olympia, WA.

▪ Allow first floor maximum size of 1,000 square feet with a maximum overall size of 1,600 square feet (not including garage). City of Olympia, WA.

▪ Increased density bonus from 20 to 50%. City of Olympia, WA. Daneislon Grove Cottages, Kirkland, WA.

▪ Allow phasing upon approval of site plan construction of common areas, frontage improvements, payment of impact fees and general facilities charges. City of Olympia, WA.

▪ Require one off-street parking space per unit (1. 5 if on-street paved parking is not available along the street frontage.) One space per unit can be provided in a garage or carport. City of Olympia, WA.

▪ Allow a single connection to sewer mains in streets, with lateral connections to each cottage on- site. City of Olympia, WA.

▪ Require two-story framing, as it is less expensive, constructionally, than 1. 5-story framing. Height restrictions could drive up construction costs. City of Olympia, WA.

▪ Allow two cottages for every family home lot. City of Olympia, WA.

14 MRSC.org

Courtyard Apartments

Unlike typical apartments in which each unit on a floor is connected to a long hallway that has two or three vertical access points by elevator or fire-stair, courtyard apartments are not Courtyard Styles, courtesy of Larry Shur connected horizontally to the other units on their floor. They’re typically L-shaped modules, connected vertically by a front entry stair and a back-porch stair to the five other units on their stack. Each set of apartments shares a main stair, front door, mail box and address. All the blocks share and view the interior – usually vegetated-- courtyard. The thin building shape provides cooling cross ventilation, while the shared utilities allow efficient use of a whole-building boiler system for heat – both demonstrations of the sustainable ideal, despite being designed and built millennials ago.

The result, a stair tower shared with just five neighbors, can be more personal and inclusive than a long, sterile hallway lined with anonymous doors on both sides. What’s more, they have access to both the interior court side of the building and the exterior, with their tiny porch/fire stair exits.

There are no current codes for the city specifically addressing courtyard apartments.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Define courtyard apartments. City of Olympia, WA.

▪ Allow in R4-8 if within 600 feet of commercial zoning or in certain corridors. City of Olympia, WA.

▪ Mandate minimum lot size requirements: R4-8= 17,500 square feet; R6-12= 13,000 square feet. City of Olympia, WA.

▪ Limit to one story in R4-8 zone, two stories in R6-12 zone. City of Olympia, WA.

▪ Apply infill residential design standards. City of Olympia, WA.

▪ Require one off-street parking space per unit; 1. 5 if on-street paved parking is not available along the street frontage. City of Olympia, WA.

Covenants and Deed Restrictions

Deed restrictions place conditions on the deed to a property, setting out certain limits or acceptable uses. The conditions, also known as covenants, “run with the land” and as a result, bind current and future homeowners. Deed restrictions have been used for years by developers and condominium associations, typically to place limits on home size or aesthetic standards. Local governments and nonprofits have also adopted the tool as a method of preserving affordable homeownership. Deed restrictions are placed on the property to limit the terms of future sales to maintain affordability for subsequent buyers.

Deed-restricted homeownership is a form of shared equity homeownership. It preserves affordability through a variety of mechanisms. Covenants can govern such perimeters as how the resale price is set at future sales; acceptable uses; and the pool of eligible buyers. Deed restrictions usually apply for a specific period of time, such as 30 or 45 years, after which they expire.

The city is open to exploring various approaches addressing deed restrictions in light of affordable housing.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Require all affordable housing units to be deed-restricted for a minimum of 55 years. City of San Diego, CA.

▪ Require deed restriction of existing housing inventory. PLAN-Boulder County, Boulder, CO.

▪ Incentivize developers by creating deed restrictions in a similar manner with a low, partial one-time tax deferment for a calendar year.

▪ Require restrictive covenants or deed restrictions for affordable units, stating the title to the referenced property will only be transferred with prior written authorization by the city.

Density Limits

See (link) for the July 2019 draft of the PRSC Vision 2050 Plan. Increasing density – the number of people dwelling on an acre of land—can preserve valuable land space, lower infrastructure costs and bring more revenue to downtown districts. Large parcels of land are typically surrounded by areas of low density and supported by limited infrastructure. Densities like this, outside of jurisdictional boundaries of cities, are typically about two to four housing units per acre, and 20 to 40 acres at the rural end. It is reported that the most difficult densities can be those with .5- to 5-acre ranges. These lower-density parcels can require expensive infrastructure for a minimal number of units. They rely on septic systems, which have a relatively short lifespan. And farmland is made unrecoupable when builders fragment parcels with large-lot homes.

The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), guided by the Growth Management Policy Review Board, has extended the region’s 2020 Growth Strategy to 2050. The key topics addressed by board members in this presentation are regional growth strategy, climate change, and jobs/(affordable) housing balance. See the above link to view the current draft of the Vision 2050 Plan.

The City of Monroe may consider increasing affordable and market-rate housing density primarily in the DC, MF, Residential and MU districts.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Coordinate with Snohomish County in planning efforts to minimize the ad hoc development of rural areas and address expansion areas. Mutually designate areas that will be maintained for open space or agricultural areas.

▪ Require cluster/conservation subdivisions at the community’s edge to transition to rural parcels. Have denser zoning on one side of the developments and the rural areas on the other.

▪ Set minimum (as opposed to maximum) densities in general or comprehensive plans and zoning districts. The EPA believes this tool helps creates neighborhoods that are close-knit and vibrant. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

▪ Designate locations for higher density development centers in comprehensive plans. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

▪ Instead of density requirements, allow smaller lot size or lot size averaging. MBA

▪ Eliminate maximum densities. PSRC endorses this as most effective in cities desiring to increase density in particular areas, such as DC areas slated for transit-oriented development. Some developers utilize this option to “make efficient use of land” as well as “maximize height and floor area ratio.” Puget Sound Regional Council

▪ Require maximum density limits, not minimums, to allow greater flexibility to discourage large lot sizes. MBA

▪ Use Floor Area Ratios (FARs) to determine the maximum allowable quantity of units.

Design Codes Quality design codes help to ensure that new development will be both aesthetic and functional in contributing to the character and feel of a community. Some features considered in implementing design code include: site layout, scale, parking configuration, and architectural features, among others, to create cohesive branding. A challenge facing cities is to develop codes which ensure high-quality housing is produced without overburdening or hindering new development.

If design guidelines impose requirements which significantly increase development costs, this policy risks driving up housing production expenses and hampering development. Form-based codes, on the other hand, also have consistent aesthetic design in mind, but focus more on visual demonstration of neighborhood size, walkability, and preservation of rural land and open space, as well as mixed-use neighborhoods conforming to unilateral design standards.

The City of Monroe is open to exploring additional approaches to design review policies.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Require yards and setbacks to be landscaped with live plant material. On property at any corner formed by intersecting streets, the landscaping shall not be higher than 3. 5 feet above the level of the center of adjacent intersection within that triangular area (sight triangle) between the property line and a diagonal line joining points on property lines twenty-five feet from the point of their intersection. (14. 64. 050). City of Richmond, CA.

Developmental and Physical Disabilities – Housing Accommodations People with developmental or physical disabilities can be challenged with finding suitable employment to meet their physical or developmental needs. In turn, many are left vulnerable as they depend on loved ones or on government support for housing and assistance. A 2016 study sites 7% of Americans residing in permanent supportive housing have a physical disability, while more than 6% of adults living in these facilities have a developmental disability. 15People with disabilities constitute a surprising 24% of the homeless population. 15

And while the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 mandates long-awaited accommodations for the physically challenged, multifamily housing developers must find economical approaches to meet these building standards. Many nonprofits refurbish apartments or single-family homes, often providing wraparound support services to accommodate the special needs of the developmentally disabled. They sometimes partner with private developers, helping them obtain government funding and advising them regarding accessible design. Such arrangements may include “set-asides,” agreements that developers will make a specified number of units within a large complex available for the exclusive use of individuals with disabilities.

The state recently enacted legislation which expands the Housing and Essential Needs (HEN) program to include people with permanent disabilities. In the past, the program provided rental assistance only to people with temporary disabilities. If a HEN recipient’s disability was later deemed permanent, they would lose their rental assistance, putting them at great risk for homelessness.

Currently, the city has 64 dwelling units serving both seniors and the developmentally disabled at two complexes, Friendship Houses I and II. Staff at the facilities state waitlists can be as long as two years.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Allocate money from a Community Development Block Grant fund to a nonprofit organization which provides housing and other services for individuals with developmental disabilities. City of Federal Way, WA.

▪ Require a percentage of all such units be designed to accommodate sensory issues and to prevent social isolation, which is largely unaddressed in the autistic and sensory-challenged populations. This serves to protect and meet the needs of the full range of tenants with spectrum disorders. Create features that help residents avoid isolation, and sound-proof bedrooms. Special Needs Alliance, Sweetwater Spectrum Project

15 United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH)

▪ Offer property tax reductions for ages 65 or older and the totally and permanently disabled, whose income does not exceed $30,200 annually. The amount of the appraised value of the residence that may be excluded is the greater of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) or 50% of the appraised value of the residence. Income is defined as monies received from every source including Social Security benefits, retirement payments, proceeds from insurance policies, interest, dividends, etc. State of North Carolina

▪ Implement the Chemical Dependency Mental Health Sales Tax (CDMH) for development of affordable housing for individuals with chemical dependency or mental health disorders. See Appendix III, Funding Sources Explained.

▪ Reduce parking requirements in developments for seniors, people with special needs, and low- income households, who may be less likely to drive, to .3 spaces per unit.

▪ Require developers to assign a certain percentage, or “set-aside” units within large complexes for the use of residents with disabilities

▪ Encourage the equitable distribution of “special needs” housing throughout the City. (3. 7B) SeaTac Comprehensive Plan, City of SeaTac, WA.

Duplexes Duplexes are two separate single-family units in one building on a single lot, often house-like, connected by a shared wall or floor and with separate entrances to the outside. Duplexes can be side-by-side or stacked on top of each other, where each floor is a distinct unit. Inside, they have all the rooms of a regular home, but often feature amenities uncommon in apartment buildings or complexes, such as in-unit laundry, porches and patios, backyards, driveways and occasionally garages. The entire building – both sides or both floors – is usually owned by a sole proprietor, who also owns the property on which the duplex sits. Duplexes are economical, as the land costs half as much per unit, while expensive service connections can be shared. A duplex owner can accommodate two households in the same area of a single-family home, while generally maintaining the neighborhood’s character.

The city presently allows duplexes in the R4 and R7 zoning districts.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Use a sliding scale of size bonuses which let buildings be slightly larger for each additional home developers create, and another bonus if one or more of the homes is offered below market-rate. Increase permission from having two dwelling units on a property to three units per lot. A property owner could add up to two ADUs, one in a basement for example, or a backyard, in addition to a single-family home. Another option is an owner can have a duplex with an ADU, or on corner lots ─ a triplex. City of Portland, OR.

▪ Allow duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, ADUs and cottage clusters in single-family home residential districts. State of Oregon

▪ Allow two similarly sized dwelling units under the same ownership on sites designated for duplex use in the Cupertino General Plan and Zoning Map. City of Cupertino, CA. For more on Cupertino’s Duplex Law, see (link).

▪ Allow building of duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes on corner lots of multifamily and single-family residential housing. Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties

▪ Allow new duplexes in the R4-8 Zone. City of Olympia, WA. ▪ Establish minimum lot width (45’) and size (7,200 square feet) for R4-8 Zone. Modify lot width to 40’ and minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet for R6-12 Zone. City of Olympia, WA.

▪ Allow one connection to sewer main for duplexes. City of Olympia, WA.

▪ Require one off-street parking space per unit (1. 5 if on-street paved parking is not available along street frontage). City of Olympia, WA.

Triplexes and Fourplexes City of Olympia, WA.

▪ Allow in R6-12 zones; allow in R4-8 if within 600 feet of commercial zoning or in certain corridors.

▪ Require one off-street parking space per unit (1. 5 if on-street paved parking is not available along the street frontage).

▪ Establish minimum lot widths and lot sizes in R48 and R6-12 zones. (45’minimum lot width; triplex= 9,600 square feet; fourplex = 13,000 square feet.) R6-12 Zone: 40’ min lot width; triplex= 7,200 square feet; fourplex = 9,600 square feet.

Energy Efficiency “Affordability is not only about being able to afford to buy or rent a house, but also being able to afford to live in it,” the World Economic Forum explains. Low-income households carry a larger burden for energy costs, typically spending 16.3% of their total annual income versus 3.5% for other households16. Reducing energy cost burdens on affordable housing residents can help reduce their risk of eviction. In 1997, 26 % of evictions in St. Paul, Minnesota, were precipitated by electric and gas utility service termination17.

Reducing energy costs can help to ensure that low-rent housing remains affordable. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) estimates many households can save between 20 and 30% on energy costs by improving energy efficiency.18 The DOE Weatherization Assistance Program, sponsored by the Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, offers a free home energy audit to residents meeting specific low-income qualifications. Following the energy audit, cities implement a weatherization package of energy efficiency projects to improve home insulation, venting, and envelope sealing.

One aspect of energy efficiency which could be addressed is the practice of sub-metering by apartment complexes ─ metering each unit so that the tenant pays for utilities which they actually use. Landlords not installing individual unit meters tally the sum of all units’ usage and divided it equally among tenants, requiring energy-conscious residents to pick up the slack for irresponsible utility usage. Benefits of sub-metering include energy conservation, fair utility billing, stabilized rents, and reduction of administrative overhead.19 Tenants could receive the full benefit of energy cost reductions, with the potential lower cost of personal utility bills keeping them from being displaced.

Sub-metering provides an assurance that the owner’s utility costs will be covered by tenant payments that reflect actual consumption, helping building owners to minimize the risk of receiving insufficient payments to cover utility costs during periods of unusually high expenditure. Tenants who refuse to pay personal utility bills could have their individual meters turned off to require compliance.

Sub-metering systems typically include a utility master meter read by the provider with private sub- meters read and billed by the owner or a third party, like a management company. Communities can investigate the option of direct metering by the utility provider, removing the owner from the unit billing process and providing residents the benefit of directly connecting to utility programs and information.20 "Smart" meters can be read remotely and more frequently, providing instant access to utility consumption information for both customers and utilities.21 Washington State has no laws requiring sub-metering of utilities by units.

16 The Oakridge National Laboratory (ORNL) study, sponsored by the United States Department of Energy (DOE), 2014 17 United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 2004 18 Energysavers.com 19 Tenants Union of Washington State 20 Friends of the Verde River, a habitat stewardship organization 21 Alliance for Water Efficiency

Although the city has no ordinances addressing sub-metering of Utilities - In rental units, utilities at this time, it addresses energy efficiency in its municipal utilities include electric, codes and is open to considering other options. gas, water, sewer and garbage. *The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Mandate an energy efficiency density bonus for commercial, office, or mixed-use buildings. The example is based upon the core Downtown zoning district, using an electric utility’s efficiency design program for third-party certification. This could be mandatory for certain types of development projects. City of Minneapolis, MN.

▪ Protect tenants under the city’s Third-Party Billing Ordinance, which requires landlords to provide

information on how they calculate tenants’ bills. City of Seattle, WA.

▪ Require mandatory metering in individual apartment units, thermostatic valves and heat cost allocators on radiators to significantly reduce operational costs, such as heating and cooling (Economic World Forum).

▪ Negotiate with the Snohomish County Public Utility District (PUD) to provide discounts for bulk purchases of sub-meters for multifamily housing units, if this option is pursued.

A Map of Sub-Metering Laws Across the Nation

Sub-Metering

▪ No water shall be furnished to any newly constructed building or premises except through water meters and shall be charged at the established rates. Water service is billed by the utility on a master meter basis and the landlord or property owner is responsible for paying the utility for all charges contained in such bills. All new multi-family buildings shall be billed by the owner or landlord or by a third party, based on sub-unit meters which will be installed at the time of construction. Northgeorgiawater.org United States Department of Energy, Better Buildings Initiative

▪ Investigate the option of direct metering by the water utility. This would remove the owner from the onus of the unit billing process and provide residents the benefit of directly connecting to utility programs and information. Friends of the Verde River

▪ Consider installing “Smart” meters which can be read remotely and monitored for ongoing consumption. Alliance for Water Efficiency

Evictions

Culminating research indicates that in many cases, eviction is not just a condition of poverty; for some people, it is a cause. Effectual eviction policies go hand-in-hand with preserving affordable housing stock and helping to prevent unjustified displacement of tenants into the ranks of the homeless.

About 80 to 90% of evictions are due to someone falling behind in rent.22 Common reasons for eviction are job loss, cost-consuming emergencies, accidents or illness, or a landlord deciding to suddenly sell to a higher bidder. Not surprisingly, one of the root-level problems compounding homelessness is eviction due to rent increases. Stagnating wages have not kept up with the escalating cost of rents. Consequently, Washington has lost more than 80,000 affordable rental units between 2012 and 2017. 23

Since 2018, three new laws have gone into effect to protect tenants from being unjustly ― and hastily ― evicted. In May of 2019, Governor Inslee signed into law SB 5600, which will require landlords to give tenants 14-day notices to pay rent before eviction proceedings can begin, giving tenants sufficient time to make up for rent shortfalls to avoid displacement. Until this law, Washington renters only required a three-day notice. A second new law provides financial relief to low-income tenants facing eviction for non- payment of rent. And a third law assists landlords with an added security to work with tenants receiving rental assistance.

Eviction Lab at Princeton University conducted an extensive study and compiled the first national database of evictions. Their study strongly suggests that “just cause” eviction ordinances have a remarkable effect on eviction filing rates. Significantly, the study shows eviction rates dropped by 0.808% and eviction filing rates dropped by 0.780% after passage of just cause eviction ordinances. Cities can help minimize future displacements by working with local landlords to encourage cooperation with legislation and to educate tenants of rights and responsibilities. Cities could also consider enacting “just cause” legislation for evictions.

22 University of Washington 23 The News Tribune

The City of Everett is open to further exploring the effects of eviction on affordable housing. Administration is also open to exploring new legislation addressing evictions and landlord-tenant relationships outlined in the Legislation section of this whitepaper.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or the author. See page 8 for color key.

▪ Protect low-income tenants from displacement by enacting three ordinances: a 45-day notice of rent increase; a 6-day notice to vacate; and a source of income protection, which prohibits landlords from refusing to rent based solely on the source of income. City of Vancouver, WA.

▪ Employ a Just Cause Eviction Ordinance to prevent landlords from arbitrarily ending a rental agreement. Applying to month-by-month renters and renters with verbal agreements, the law says in order to end a lease, a landlord or property manager must state one of the 18 approved reasons listed in the Just Cause Eviction Ordinance. Most Just-Cause reasons do not require the owner to pay any type of relocation assistance to a tenant. City of Seattle, WA. ▪ Enforce Washington State eviction laws requiring mandatory compliance and consider adaptation of such laws providing optional compliance. See Current Legislation section in this chapter.

▪ Meet with managers of transitional housing and other low-income housing on an annual basis to discuss state eviction laws and obstacles in tenant-landlord relationships. Consider their input in compiling local eviction ordinances.

Floor-to-Area Ratios (FAR)/ Floor Space Index (FSI) FARs limit the size of buildings in relation to the size of the lot on which it’s located. To calculate FARs, the total square feet of all Image courtesy of Propertyshark.com the floors on a building are divided by the total square feet of the lot, including lot areas not in use. Buildings can have various quantities of stories, but still have identical FAR values. See image.

Properties with low FAR limits are less attractive to developers. In general, the real estate industry sees higher FARs as opportunities for higher densities. Higher FARs also tend to allow developers to open up space and complete projects more efficiently. They allow for larger buildings, increasing sales and leases, and lower per-project expenditures.

Recalibrating dimensional standards can help accommodate more compact developments and improve connectivity and design. Cities have often found that lowering FAR limits succeeds in reducing the density of buildings, but not always the density of people, as many choose to occupy smaller spaces. Another unpredicted side effect of lower FAR limits is it incentivizes developers to opt for fewer and larger apartments in order to minimize the space given to lobbies and stairwells. This in turn, could limit the supply of smaller apartments, and thus reduce their affordability. RCW 19.27A is 2018 legislation which eliminates gross floor area requirements for single-family dwellings. This could be considered for defining tiny homes or ADUs as single-family dwellings.

The city addresses FARs in its municipal codes and is exploring options with increased density.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Allow “Inverse Incentive FAR”, a practice which rewards developers for constructing smaller apartments by allowing them more FAR to use on larger apartments. For example, if the benchmark is 800 square feet and a developer builds apartments of 600 square feet, it could buy 200 square feet of FAR from the city at below-market rate, up to a stipulated maximum. It can then use this FAR to construct large apartments. This ensures a balance between apartments of all sizes. The World Economic Forum

▪ Increase height, smaller yards and open space, increase lot or building coverage, and increase floor area ratios (FAR) for mixed-use and commercial development. Replace FAR with form standards such as height and maximum setbacks. United States Environmental Protection Agency

Form-Based Codes (FBCs) As cities address the growing need for affordable housing, administrations are seeking ways to incentivize affordable housing developers to build in their communities. Some cities have found the development of attractive and easy-to- understand visual form-based codes offers concrete guidance to developers and simplifies their decision process, while complex and verbose regulations could dissuade them from building.

Form-based codes visually and verbally address the relationship between building facades and the public realm, the form and mass of buildings as they relate to one another, and the scale and types of streets and blocks. The regulations and standards in form-based codes are presented in the written word, clearly drawn diagrams, and other visuals. Introduced about 30 years ago, this movement is slowly gaining momentum: Since January 2018, more than 400 communities have enacted form-based codes world-wide. Form-Based Codes Institute at Smart Growth Building form standards can profoundly affect how public spaces such as streets, squares and parks are used and experienced. They graphically demonstrate where parking could go. For example, requiring placement of parking to the rear of a building ensures that it doesn’t get between buildings and pedestrians. Building orientation is key.

“Concepts are not enough. A vision needs to show building types, the relationship of buildings to public spaces, types of streets and where they go, placement of parking, the size of blocks, and so forth. After this, vision is drawn…” Form-Based Codes Institute

Street types are formulated not just as conduits for cars, but also as public spaces that invite walking, with a rich mix of buildings and uses. Streets can be designed to intersect at right angles or have interesting deflections and curves. FBCs ensure the block dimensions stay walkable. Many FBCs regulate block dimensions to keep blocks small and and streets interconnected. This allows more routes between locations and encourages waling and exploration. Traffic also gets lightly distributed over many streets, rather than funneled into a number of supersized streets. The city might consider these approaches when allowing development on future annexed lands or the DC district.

Some architects fear form standards for building will restrict their creativity. However, these standards simpy require that buildings support and shape the public spaces of a town or city. Building form standards control the use of land in a more indirect way than standard zoning. Rather than providing lengthy lists of acceptable uses, they describe general uses, trying to guide land use through building type. For example, building a pedestrian-friendly main street would prescribe shopfront or mixed-use buildings. By putting the important decisions about urban form in simple and visual ordinances, FBCs

could cut through red tape and time-consuming review processes. Once solid FBCs are enacted, the code can then include a by-right review process, if needed. A discretionary review process might no longer be necessary because the community can be confident that what will be built will be appropriate.

Some drawbacks to the FBC approach are they can be expensive to create, and despite the original intent to keep codes short and simple, many adopted form-based codes have been lengthier and more complex than the previous use-based zoning codes.

The City of Monroe employs a mostly by-right and some discretionary review process. The city has explored FBCs in the past, and has not implemented any such codes. An alternative is to use hybridized form-based codes only in the DC district. Many of the codes and suggestions in this section can be used, regardless of adoption of FBCs.

Form-Based Codes Institute at Smart Growth America Form-Based Codes Institute at Smart Growth America

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Set buildings very close to the street in order to define the public realm and allow for visible activity along the streetscape. The Beaufort Code, City of Beaufort, SC (Award Winning) (link)

▪ Create and mandate guidelines with form-based codes. City of Bellevue, WA.

▪ Adopt standards to incorporate trees and other shade structures into the pedestrian realm, especially in mixed-use districts, addressing maintenance and irrigation as well as landowner responsibilities. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

▪ Implement design standards for parking structures. EPA

▪ Adopt transition/compatibility standards-- such as building setbacks, open space, and landscaping-- to ensure higher density projects are compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. EPA

▪ Require buildings to have windows and welcoming front entries. FBCI

“Nashville has adopted form-based codes for over 30 districts, corridors and neighborhoods. The direct result has been an increase in property values and a much greater desire to develop in areas with FBCs, due to the certainty that the code provides the developer and the community.”

Rich Bernhardt, Planning Director, Nashville, Tennessee

▪ Regulate front build-to lines — rather than setback lines — and maximum footprints to prevent buildings which are too large for the neighborhood’s character. Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU)

▪ Set buildings about 30 feet from the street along busy downtown corridors, to promote vegetation, larger walkable sidewalks, and “breathability”. (see City of Mill Creek Hwy 527 DC Corridor)

▪ Create a visual regulating plan, such as below. The Form Based Code Institute

▪ Create regulations controlling external architectural materials and quality. ▪ Create regulations controlling landscape design and plant materials on private property, as they impact public spaces.

▪ Revise codes for existing districts to encourage redevelopment of neighborhoods by applying new dimensional standards, such as smaller lot requirements.

▪ Rein Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) in by establishing minimum sizes for PUD projects, identifying specific allowable locations, and prohibiting waivers or other compromises of environmental and design standards. EPA, “Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes”

▪ Create regulations controlling allowable signage sizes, materials, illumination, and placement.

▪ See (link) to view the City of Bellevue’s Pedestrian Corridor and Major Public Open Space Design. ▪ Create regulations controlling issues such as storm water drainage and infiltration, development on slopes, tree protection, solar access, etc.

▪ Require annotative text which explains the intentions of specific codes accompanying visuals.

▪ Provide “by-right” variances/modifications (increased heights/densities, mixed-use and affordable housing styles) which can be approved administratively by staff.

▪ Require windows, planted trees and street lamps per every specified linear feet of frontage, as applicable, in DC zones.

▪ Detail what is required rather than what is prohibited, providing accurate predictions of developments.

▪ Consider changing minimum standards to maximum.

▪ Modify lot width, smaller yards, and increased lot or building coverage for smaller lots in residential areas to increase density.

▪ Require smaller yards and open space for residential lot development, increased lot or building coverage, and increased Floor Area Ratios (FARs).

▪ Replace FARs with form standards, such as height and maximum setbacks.

▪ Establish reduced block lengths or perimeters to produce better connections and walkability in new developments.

▪ Hire an expert urban designer to create a Visual Regulating Plan, Building Form Standards, and Public Space Standards for designated areas of the city.

▪ Create standards which aim to maintain a specific level of architectural or historic character, addressing features such as building facades, public spaces, or landscaping.

▪ Outline a specific urban form rather than zoning by use. Utilize graphic area plans and city-wide codes in order to provide a visual, user-friendly overview of the regulations which apply to various uses or development styles.

* A portion of these recommendations are provided, courtesy of the Form-Based Codes Institute at Smart Growth America.

Height Restrictions Height restrictions are created for various reasons, such as to maintain views of landmarks or attractive community features, or to maintain flight visibility around airports. Height restriction laws at times become a point of contention in cities, as they can regulate the growth of housing supply. As cities seek to accommodate affordable housing, many are enacting measures to broaden or eliminate height restrictions.

The City of Monroe currently has height restrictions of 35 feet for single-family homes and 45 feet for multifamily housing. City of Tacoma, WA. Building Height Standards

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Require height limit for main structures within the R-1 and R-2 Districts (outside of the VSD) to be 35 feet and the height limit for accessory structures to be 15 feet. For buildings with pitched roofs, the height is measured to the midpoint of the roof, as shown in the image above. One foot of additional height is allowed on the lower corners of a building for every six percent of slope on sites located within the VSD. City of Tacoma, WA.

▪ Require height variances for accessory buildings (not to exceed 25 feet) to only be allowed in specific circumstances, such as to accommodate door clearance for storage of a recreational vehicle or boat. City of Tacoma, WA.

▪ Relax height restrictions and reduce minimum property sizes, enabling properties to be subdivided.

▪ Increase zoning height restrictions to above 45’ for multifamily complexes accommodating affordable housing rates.

Hotels and Motels

Hoteliers continue to discover creative approaches to attracting new clients while enhancing their profitability. Older or dilapidated hotels and motels can be strategically converted into affordable housing units and in some cases, mixed-use communities. In the County of Dennis, Massachusetts, Evergreen Inn and Suites, various facilities were transformed into housing units for both 80% and 120% Monroe, WA. AMI residents. Among those transformed: a traditional motel converted to 24 rental units, both with bedrooms or studios; a small cottage colony which required a zoning change; and conversion of a motel into a twenty-four-unit apartment facility (both two-bedroom and studios).

Today’s mixed-use hotels frequently combine hotel rooms and condos with or without retail space. Some properties even feature some level of office space or co-working facility.

The City of Monroe has a variety of hotels and motels in its jurisdiction.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Allow conversion of hotels, inns, and even restaurants into year-round market-rate or affordable housing and/or Mixed-Use housing developments, if applicable.

▪ Require units to have a minimum 250 square feet of living space.

▪ Require mixed unit sizes and a minimum of 25% of a complex’s units to have 1 bedroom and at least 700 square feet.

▪ Require mixed unit sizes and a minimum of 25% of a complex’s units to have 1 bedroom and at least 700 square feet. No more than 25 units can have a minimum floor area of 400 square feet.

▪ Prohibit expansion of existing buildings to accommodate affordable housing units.

▪ Require at least 25% of units to be deed-restricted and affordable.

Impact Fees Cities charge impact fees to property developers for the purpose of providing new or expanded public capital facilities ─ providing fire, police, school, library and other district services required to serve that development. This fee is applied to new infrastructure, which must be built or increased.

The city’s ordinances currently offer generous 80% impact fee waivers for affordable housing and select groups.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Give developers the option to defer impact fees, only until the development is ready for its utility release. “Fees that could be deferred: streets, circulation; C SR-78 Interchanges; technology improvements (GIS); arks; habitat conservation and drainage basin fees. As a condition of the deferment, a lien is recorded on the affected property with the county recorder in the amount that is deferred and shall be enforceable against successors in interest to the owner.” City of San Marcos, CA.

Infill Development This describes any development on vacant or underused land parcels situated in already developed areas, or the redevelopment of an existing property in order to make the land more efficient. Infill development can increase density without annexing more land or infringing on open space. Infill properties can also enhance mixed-use development ― either singularly, or if multiple infill lots are side-by-side, to create mixed-use housing complexes.

The City of Monroe is currently exploring options for infill development.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Encourage infill development by combining neighboring properties to create larger parcels, preferably close to transit and services.

▪ Vary fees for development based on location, as infill sites may have lower infrastructure costs than greenfield or peripheral developments.

▪ Adopt density bonuses to allow developers to build at a higher density than is allowed under the existing zoning code, in exchange for a community benefit, such as a park or affordable housing.

▪ Put public offices in infill locations. Jurisdictions can improve market conditions for infill development by locating their offices in priority infill areas.

Recommended Infill Codes

Courtesy, United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Attracting Infill Development in Distressed Communities: 30 Strategies”

Funding for Infills

Courtesy, United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Attracting Infill Development in Distressed Communities: 30 Strategies”

Land

Cities across the country are banding together to explore creative approaches to overcome one of the biggest barriers to the construction of affordable housing: acquisition of buildable land. For development investors, the cost of land is sizable, typically accounting for 20% of overall development expenses. And as buildable lands become increasingly scarce for new development to accommodate our growing communities, cities are employing creative approaches. Popular considerations to maximize both the use and availability of lands are land acquisition, donating or selling public lands, pooling of public lands, more aggressively identifying and utilizing vacant lands, and participating in Municipal Land Banks (MLBs) and Community Land Trusts (CLTs).

Acquisition of Land In areas like Monroe, where demand for affordable housing is high, land owners may be able to generate higher revenue from commercial or industrial use, or may choose to hold on to their land in hope that it increases in value. Some city administrations are creating codes which disincentivize “land hoarding”, where land owners might hold on to their land for a better return or a more preferred use. Some vacant land owners “hide” these lands by filing for exemptions or repeatedly stalling by asking for building permits and never making improvements.

The City of Monroe is considering various options for land acquisition.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Create a rehabilitation or land acquisition loan fund to finance affordable housing development. (HP32). City of Federal Way, WA.

▪ Create a separate Parkland Acquisition Fund, for the sole purpose of acquiring land for parks, as needed, if land is not buildable. Prepare brochures or explanatory handouts for distribution to property owners, explaining the benefits of donating property for affordable housing or parks. City of Grove City, OH.

▪ Explore opportunities for developers to build multifamily housing complexes on excess school land, in exchange for renovation or building of a new school facility. See page 20 on (link), “Building for Tomorrow: Innovative Infrastructure Solutions”, NAHB

▪ Encourage the use of Split-Rate Taxes, which differentiates property taxes into a lower tax rate for buildings and a higher tax rate for land. This could incentivize developers and speculators to potentially release vacant land for affordable housing.

▪ Use a development agency to purchase difficult-to-obtain or critical land parcels. This could be effective in corridors, which often have smaller parcels which require aggregation to permit higher density development.

▪ Create a city monitoring program which prohibits landowners of vacant properties from “hiding” vacant lands through filing exemptions or repeated building permits.

▪ Encourage cities to acquire properties whose owners have defaulted on property taxes.

▪ Require the city to not transfer ownership of municipal land until potential nonprofit buyers secure funding. Mandate that a percentage of the funds from any sale of this property go into a designated city Affordable Housing Fund and another percentage into the city’s General Fund.

▪ Create a Real Estate Review Committee which includes two council members to determine best use of surplus property, with input from the Housing Authority, Human Services and the community to determine feasibility of acquiring specific land.

Donating or Selling Public Land The State of Washington ranks fifth for the nation’s highest land values, indicating land costs are a major culprit for the market’s scarce housing supply.24 RCW 39.33.015 gives jurisdictions authority to sell land below market value or to give it away for free for affordable housing and related facilities for low- income and very low-income households. Many cities donate land parcels to developers, expecting the reduced development costs will yield increased revenue and housing affordability in the long-run.

One perspective is to view surplus land not as a revenue generator, but to reduce displacement and provide affordable housing. In 2017, state law required Sound Transit to offer 80% of its surplus land to affordable housing to address the 80% AMI and below tenants or to give it away. Board members of Sound Transit donated 111 units for formerly homeless seniors with 30% AMI and below, with a ground- floor retail and community space.

One of the city’s highest priorities is selling 8.4 acres of its commercially zoned North Kelsey property as a rezoned mixed-use housing development to enhance the district with beautifully architectured amenities for residents and businesses. This parcel is part of approximately 23 acres of Tjerne Place, a thriving sub-regional retail center north of Highway 2.

The city is also requesting a code amendment and rezone for the Monroe Monroe's North Kelsey Property School District’s 4.85-acre Marshall Field property, so it can be sold to a (red) 2019 private developer.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Allow nonprofits to develop affordable housing by purchasing foreclosed vacant lots or surplus vacant lots from city inventory at below-market price. Dallas, TX.

▪ Require the city not to sell its land, but rather only to provide leases.

▪ Pursue joint development: Building housing and public facilities together on the same surplus city property provides an opportunity for infrastructure cost savings, more accessible services, enhanced mixed-use development, and better design. In the meantime, land banking programs can accrue and preserve surplus, vacant or underutilized properties.

▪ Encourage landowners who would like to retain ownership of currently under-utilized land parcels to offer long-term leases at below-market rates. Challenge Seattle

24 24/7 Wall St., an independent financial news and opinion organization

▪ Incentivize landowners to invest land as equity in a project, patiently accepting longer-term returns over the life of the project and thus reducing upfront costs. For example, offering land at 50-75% of market value could reduce monthly rent by $100 to $300 per unit. Challenge Seattle

▪ Donate or allow developers to bid for city land on the open market, along with obliging several tiered beautification incentives of the developers’ choice (i.e., 1 tier one and 2 tier two options) and require provision of mixed-use, mixed-income housing.

▪ Prepare and distribute brochures or explanatory handouts to property owners, explaining the benefits of donating property to the city for affordable housing, and list benefits. Identify incentives the city could provide to owners of land who wish to contribute parcels to the city.

▪ Make public lands available at no cost, deep discount, or for long-term use.

Pooling of Lands While scattered and unattractive land parcels may hinder private- sector development, land pooling may offer a solution. Land pooling can involve multiple cities or entities, or be a union between a city and a private or nonprofit land owner. In one approach, landowners can voluntarily sign ownership rights over to a single agency or government entity, which in turn develops the land by building basic infrastructure such as roads, sewage lines, water connections and electricity. The agency returns a smaller portion of the developed land to the original owner, equivalent to the market value of the owner’s original land before the added infrastructure investment increased its values. This process ensures planned development of the land. It offers an opportunity to recover costs incurred in building the infrastructure, and if conducted properly, could increase equity in land distribution. However, there is no guarantee the land will be developed, and speculators may want to hold on to the land to accrue added real estate value.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Pool resources from other city authorities to purchase or use city-owned lands for affordable housing. Many public institutions – airport authorities, port authorities, water and sewer authorities, convention center authorities, stadium authorities, redevelopment authorities, public housing authorities, land banks, school boards – co-own large amounts of the city but rarely align their management of assets for the broader good. City of Copenhagen revitalization model, 1987

▪ Mandate all pooling owners of newly-purchased land to submit a joint proposal of intended use to the city within one year of purchase.

Vacant Lands Local governments bear a financial burden with vacant properties through lost tax revenues. The number of vacant residential units have increased nation-wide, from seven million in 2000 to ten million in 2014.25 Vacant and abandoned properties not only represent lost housing opportunities, but can cause significant harm to surrounding neighborhoods.26 One study found the sale price of homes within 500 feet of a vacant property depreciated by 1.7 % in low-poverty areas and 2.1 % in medium-poverty areas.27 Another study sites the rate of violent crime within 250 feet of a vacant property is 15% higher than its surrounding area.28

Some developers face a challenge in not being privy to an accessible database of land available for sale. If they spot a plot of land ripe for development, they may face cumbersome processes to discover who the owner is, what kind of zoning applies to the land, and whether the property is on the market. Creating and posting a database addressing such criteria in real-time interactive mapping of vacant lands would open up opportunities to sell, donate, or best-utilize lands for affordable housing. Another option is to encourage Snohomish County to create a periodically updated county-wide vacant lands database, supported by municipal databases. The author asked the city’s senior planner to create a vacant lands aerial map of city-owned lands, below. It has two portions, and vacant lands are marked with blue tabs.

Vacant Lands (blue tabs) Owned by the City of Monroe 9/2019

25 Whitehouse.gov, “Housing Development Toolkit” 26 2014 Cleveland, Ohio study 27 HUDuser.gov, “Vacant and Abandoned Properties: Turning Liabilities into Assets” 28 University of Pittsburgh, 2010

The City of Monroe is considering various approaches to identifying vacant lands in the community, in addition to addressing its own vacant lands.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Require individuals to register vacant land or often pay a fee. Increase the fees with graduated fee schedules, the longer a property is vacant at each registration renewal. Cities in Florida, California, Illinois and Michigan

▪ Require property registration within 10 days of foreclosure filing, regardless of occupancy status. City of Tinley Park, IL.

▪ Properties deemed empty are subject to a tax of 1% of assessed value. City of Vancouver, WA. 2018

▪ Acquire vacant lots for affordable single-family housing development and allow nonprofit groups to develop affordable housing by purchasing foreclosed vacant or surplus land lots from the city’s inventory at below-market rate, thus reducing the blight of vacant lots. City of Dallas, TX.

▪ Create a beta version of an interactive tool for municipalities, allowing any interested party to use filters to narrow down a list of about 10,000 developable public properties according to specific characteristics, such as zoning, square footage, and eligibility for tax credits. Originated by Enterprise Community Partners, a nonprofit which helped the City of Seattle in this regard. (sightline. org)

▪ Aggressively identify vacant lands in the community.

▪ Create a vacant property register to identify unused land and potential acquisitions and preservation, specifically oriented to bank-foreclosed and real estate-owned properties. Pittsburgh Affordable Housing Task Force, 2016

▪ Include clear definitions of which properties and which parties must register; registration requirements and procedures, including the information required of the owner or lienholder; fee structure; obligations of the owner, with respect to maintaining the property; and penalties for failing to register in timely fashion. (communityprogress.net)

▪ Assign an annual vacant land tax after a 12-month grace period.

▪ Refrain from charging high Vacant Property Registration Ordinances (VPROs), which could lead some property owners who are paying taxes and at least minimally maintaining their properties, to abandon them.

▪ Fine owners of vacant lands for each validated police-force visit to properties which have formal and justified complaints of crime or suspected loitering. Allow the proceeds of this fine to go into a designated Affordable Housing Fund for the city.

▪ Waive or defer VPRO fees for buildings scheduled for rehabilitation; and rebate fees paid for the year or two years when a vacant building is restored or actively usable.

Municipal Land Banks Land banks are governmental nonprofit corporations which convert vacant, abandoned, and tax- foreclosed properties into affordable housing or other productive uses, while reducing the harm of vacant properties. These entities focus on the short-term ownership (usually three to five years) of vacant lands. They secure land at a low price and ready it for sale for redevelopment. Typically, land banks are granted special powers via state law, including the ability to remove legal and financial barriers, such as delinquent property taxes, that often render vacant and abandoned properties inaccessible or unappealing to the private market. Land banks have special authorities, such as the ability to acquire and hold properties tax-free, to clear title and back taxes, and dispose of properties intentionally, not just to the highest bidder. For example, they may demolish blighted structures; remediate soil; give side lots to neighboring owners, donate land to nonprofits, or assemble properties for larger developers.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Create a land bank that converts tax-delinquent and vacant lands into affordable housing or other productive uses. City of Dallas, TX

Community Land Trusts (CLTs) For a tool kit to maintain a land trust, see (link). For a model ground lease from Ground Solutions, see (link).

A typical community land trust is a nonprofit, democratically-run organization run by a board, staff, and community members to provide potential homeowners a way to shape their community through affordable housing purchases in a community-based environment. CLTs focus on the long-term stewardship of lands and buildings, following redevelopment. They retain ownership of land, sell the structures on it, and offer long-term ground leases to those structures’ owners. To create permanently affordable homeownership, CLTs buy and sell houses, often starter homes, with a resale price restriction. CLTs also develop and maintain affordable rental housing, commercial spaces, gardens, and community facilities. Land trusts operate in all markets, though they are best known for their goal of preventing displacement in appreciating markets. A CLT holds land in “trust” and uses its ownership to keep an eye on how it is used, its condition, and its affordability.

When a family or an individual purchase a house sitting on land owned by the community land trust, the purchase price is more affordable because the homeowner is only buying the house, not the land. The homeowners lease the land from the community land trust in a long-term (often 99-year), renewable lease, which enables the residents and their descendants to occupy the land for life. When they decide to sell, the homeowners agree to sell the home at a restricted price, back to the CLT or to another low- income household to keep it affordable in perpetuity. The seller may be able to realize appreciation from improvements they make while they reside in the house. The Land Trust continues to own the land to rent to the next homeowner. CLTs have an established track record of very low default rates. In 2008, CLTs had a foreclosure rate of 0.52% nationally, compared to more than 3.3 % for traditional home buyers. 29

At this time, the city does not belong to a land trust.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Require home ownership to include membership in the land trust organization. One-third of board of directors are homeowners, joining local housing advocates, city officials and community members. City of Spokane, WA.

29 MRSC and the Association of Washington Cities (AWC)

▪ Partner with a land trust and the Washington State Housing Finance Commission to help with down payment and closing costs for low-income households. Since 1977, Bellingham has offered financial assistance to low-income homeowners to repair their homes. In 2013, the city‘s land trust fund helped to expand their efforts to repair and weatherize owner-occupied manufactured homes.

▪ Foster community land trusts and other shared-equity models to help land remain available for affordable homes over the long term.

Lender Incentives Lenders provide significant capital to make affordable housing happen. Some institutional investors see affordable housing as a niche opportunity for diversifying investment portfolios, rather than a market opportunity for high returns.

And yet, rising levels of past-due loans and charge-offs are putting profit and capital pressures on more lenders, increasing the need for innovative thinking as borrowers face reduced housing values and employment upheavals. Despite many challenges, financial institutions can achieve strong CRA ratings as they consider new approaches to meeting developers’ credit and service needs.

Although the City of Monroe has a strong AA credit rating, the administration is not pursuing backing loans at this time. City staff shared that the majority of nonprofit developers in this community fund themselves, and most multifamily developers come from the King County area, seeking help from lenders outside of this community. Nevertheless, the approaches below could be suggested as bargaining tools for interested developers and lenders.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Implement new approaches to mortgage loan modifications. FDIC

▪ Address emerging community development credit needs in conjunction with economic recovery programs. FDIC

▪ Use or increase use of FHA programs for mortgages or Small Business Administration (SBA) programs. FDIC

▪ Increase supply of short-term, early stage loans (construction and development) to developers at reasonable rates. Changing Prime Plus to Prime Minus loans may help developments to get off the ground during the risky stage prior to construction, when design permitting and other non-revenue generating processes take place.

▪ Provide incentives to ensure projects qualify for CRA credit from FDIC-insured banks. Banks pursue qualifying projects to help them pass their CRA exam.

▪ Reduce interest rates by 1 to 2% for development loans from the current market rate of 5%. This can decrease rents by $100 to $250, if the market is building similar sizes and quantities of units for the

same financing. Rental decreases would be dependent on many factors, specifically how much is the loan, what is the term of the loan, and how many units are being built by this loan.

▪ Provide patient, below-market equity. Typical equity accounts for 25-35% of funding for housing developments. The average cash yield on an investment is 6-9% and is a significant indicator of housing costs. Patient equity investments lower costs by extending the time horizon before returns are realized.

▪ Create loan financing tools for construction of ADUs geared toward lower-income seniors who cannot afford to qualify for a mortgage.

▪ Create a city-appointed Lenders Taskforce of impact-oriented investors, bankers, nonprofits and other institutions to work collaboratively in providing lending solutions to attract affordable housing developers.

▪ Take a significant role in state and local economic development programs which address the needs of firms which qualify for SBA or state assistance. This could be considered small business or CD lending, depending on loan size.

▪ Use or increase use of FHA programs for mortgages or Small Business Administration (SBA) programs to support local employment.

▪ Conduct broad-based outreach to small-businesses which may not have existing banking relationships. This helps to ensure banks are not limiting service to long-standing clients and word- of- mouth.

▪ Encourage developers to create long-term plans for capital management. Because many nonprofit developers continue to manage their rental properties, they can refinance their growing portfolios over the years. Pooling of collateral can help nonprofits free up equity income to further affordable housing.

▪ Require full cooperation from the city in timely permitting and inspections.

Local Businesses Transforming commercial districts into budding start-ups of innovative businesses may invite a surge of multifamily housing development for the City of Monroe. Growing municipalities depend on local businesses to provide goods, services and employment to attract housing developers. And as mixed-use neighborhoods are revenue-generators for municipalities, providing local incentives could keep small businesses firmly planted in the community. Providing businesses and services which cater to the cultural and recreational habits of Millennials is another draw for developers.

Promoting local start-up businesses such as coffee shops, entertainment venues, novelty restaurants and delis, service-driven businesses, grocery stores, small consumer-driven tech businesses, salons, and spas helps to retain tenants in Mixed-Use (MU) developments. These new businesses may present an inherent risk, but they also fuel a sense of community that mixed-use properties are built upon.

“It’s important to create a vibrant downtown to attract a young labor force.

The young (Millennials) want to work, live and play in the same location.”

Munciejournal.com

The city is working hard to increase the level of communication with local businesses via its Economic Development program. By conducting surveys and publishing a monthly newsletter highlighting news and public announcements, the program is bringing the voice of business into the city's decision- making process. On May 8th of this year, Monroe hosted a workforce development forum to connect local businesses with the Everett Community College East County Campus. Together, they explored how the college can better accommodate the educational and training needs of local employers. The forum also provided information to local employers about programs to help them access local graduates and receive customized employee training.

According to the city's Economic Development Specialist, there are many large employers in Monroe, including Evergreen Health Monroe and Canyon Creek Cabinets, which are very engaged in the health of this community. These businesses welcome closer ties with both the college and others working to foster economic development. At the time of this writing, there are 1,240 licensed and city- endorsed businesses contributing to the local economy. 30

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

30 City of Monroe Associate Planner

▪ Limit DC district buildings to five stories and transitional to three. City of Bothell, WA.

▪ Set minimum floor areas and ceilings for retail spaces. City of Bothell, WA.

▪ Focus auto-oriented retail along the Highway 2 corridor.

▪ Write specific codes to define viable retail space and to avoid “marginal” revenue drivers, such as offices.

▪ Encourage small business start-ups to take root in the community by providing them a list of services and funding opportunities such as below. Require such lists to be distributed with and attached to business licenses granted by the city.

▪ Team with the Economic Alliance of Snohomish County to promote their business-oriented products and services, such as:

∞ Washington Small Business Development Centers- Provides confidential, objective business advice at no cost to small business owners.

∞ Procurement Technical Assistance Centers (PTAC)- Assists small businesses to find, bid on and win government contracts. They offer free one-on-one counseling services, workshops and other support to Washington State businesses.

∞ USDOT Northwest Small Business Transportation Resource Centers (SBTRCs)- Offers business analysis, market research, coaching, loan and bond assistance to owners of disadvantaged businesses, minorities and veterans. This program also helps small businesses in urban and rural communities gain preferential access to federal procurement opportunities

▪ Encourage the local Chamber of Commerce to connect younger residents to the Monroe business community. A 2017 Politico survey found that of American mayors interviewed, 85% cited attracting Millennials as one of their top 10 priorities.

▪ Seek out government and nonprofit funding programs which engage young professionals in economic development and in the community.

▪ Provide incentives to businesses which focus on the arts and cultural amenities. Nearly half of Millennials surveyed identified cultural amenities as their most important attraction.

▪ Explore opportunities with Western Washington University and the University of Washington to establish local education extension programs which have a profound effect on attracting and retaining Millennial skillsets. The city currently hosts an extension program, the East County Campus of Everett Community College, at the Lake Tye Building at Fryelands Boulevard SE.

Manufactured Houses and Mobile Homes Mobile and manufactured homes provide more affordable single- family ownership and rental options. They increase diversity of housing stock and provide more economical alternatives in single- family neighborhoods. This less expensive housing option can be viable for low-income families. These homes could provide quality housing for 10 to 20 % less, per square foot, than traditional site-built homes31.

Monroe describes a manufactured home as “a structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities.”32 Tiny homes on wheels are considered RVs, and in many cities, fall under mobile home codes.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Permit such in the city, provided they are placed on permanent foundations, and short plats and short subdivisions are also permitted. (20. 20. 527, 20. 20. 890, 20. 45B) City of Bellevue, WA.

▪ Allow mobile home parks and provide standards for existing and new parks as well as some alternative design standards. (19. 17. 250, 19. 17. 260, 19. 17. 270) City of Burien, WA.

▪ Create a Mobile Home Park Overlay zone to promote retention of mobile home parks as a source of affordable detached single-family and older adult housing, subject to the approval of 139 land use amendments. (12. 04. 100) City of Bothell, WA.

▪ Allow manufactured and mobile homes in residential zones. (18. 21. 020) City of Kenmore, WA.

▪ Remove minimum home size requirements. City of Olympia, WA.

▪ When proposed as an ADU, apply ADU design standards. City of Olympia, WA.

▪ Make provisions for tiny homes on wheels and their suitability in mobile home parks. ▪ Allow manufactured home parks at a density of up to eight units per acre, through a special approval process similar to Planned Residential Development.

31 The Manufactured Home Institute (MHI) 32 City of Monroe Code

The Missing Middle Dubbed “The Invisible Crisis”, the Missing Middle is comprised of middle-income families and individuals ~ those earning on average, between 80 to 120% of the HUD-Based AMI. This population is often referred to as the backbone of communities: Anonymous Image residents such as firefighters, nurses, teachers, construction workers and technicians. This population provides substantial revenue to city governments. Many of the Missing Middle are being priced out of their homes, unable to afford the average home mortgage. These families are faced with a difficult decision: move farther away from their employment and endure challenging commutes, or bear a costly financial burden to pay for local housing.

A shortage of affordable middle-income housing increases competition for affordable units, commonly available to tenants earning 80% and below AMI. When rent exceeds middle-income affordability, it pushes middle-income renters into housing once occupied by lower-income households. Building sufficient and reasonably priced market-rate housing for the Missing Middle frees up affordable housing to those it is meant for: the low- and very low-income renters already on the brink of homelessness and displacement. Missing Middle Housing refers to a range of housing types which can provide more than one housing unit per lot, compatible in scale with single-family homes.

Althought the city is focusing on the low- and very low-income populations in this white paper, addressing the housing needs of the Missing Middle could make a significant impact on making affordable housing available to the more cost-burdened.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Encourage building of moderately sized and priced market-rate ownership units. PLAN-Boulder County, Boulder, CO.

▪ Explore expanding and extending existing property tax exemption programs with a proven track record for inspiring low-income development, to the middle class. In their model, Seattle Challenge claims if owners receive a 50% property tax exemption on affordable middle-income multifamily projects, monthly rents could be reduced by $200 per unit. Seattle Challenge, Seattle, WA

Mixed-Income Neighborhoods Mixed neighborhoods comprise an assortment of various housing styles, such as apartments, single-family homes, cottages, tiny homes, or specialized housing for seniors. Mixed-income populations help to assimilate lower-income residents with those of higher-incomes, smashing the debilitating effect of income segregation which contributes to the poverty mindset.

At the same time, this neighborhood style increases community acceptance and property values of affordable housing. Although mixed-income communities offer low-income households an improved sense of safety and security, intentional training and human services may be helpful to teach successful life skills to some low- and very low-income residents. The unsuccessful Cabrini Green Towers of Chicago failed largely due to socio-economic isolation and lack of social services. Studies show children tend to improve academically and behaviorally when moving from financially segregated to mixed-income areas. Grocery stores and other resources in the surrounding area create additional opportunities for resident interaction and community ownership.

New Salishan Affordable Housing Community In 2001, the Tacoma Housing Authority demolished Salishan’s dilapidated and crime- ridden 1950’s affordable housing complex and transformed it from new infrastructure upward into an award-winning mixed-income community. THA used three builders to create approximately 1,400 new dwelling units, both New Salishan, Tacoma, WA: A local example of an award-winning mixed-income community. single-family homes and multifamily apartment complexes. The community includes two 5-unit buildings reserved for seniors, its own elementary school, the region's largest primary health care and dental clinic, a public library, a grocery store, a child care center, a credit union, office and programming space for nonprofit education and training services and community space. New Salishan was built for walkers and children, with extensive green belts through and surrounding the neighborhood. The project has been cited for exemplary housing design, neighborhood design, affordability and environmental innovation. (link) The developers employed low-impact storm drainage systems to reduce the amount of impervious area and infiltrate as much stormwater as possible on-site. A recreation center for youth, enforced eviction policies, added police and security, and a low-cost grocery store for families helped to significantly reduce crime and build a cohesive community.

Mixed-Use (MU) Housing

After years of neglect and decline, downtown and suburban retail areas are experiencing a renaissance through mixed-use housing. Cities are seeing a shift from commercial-only to commercial and residential, and life is being poured back into these once-isolated districts.

Mixed-Use Housing, Main Street, City of Bothell, WA. In essence, mixed-use properties are defined by their efficient design, convenient location, a wide range of MU amenities, more satisfied and hence faithful tenants, and affordability. Mixed-use housing is a type of zoning which can blend residential, commercial, cultural, office, entertainment and institutional uses into one area.

A common type of mixed-use housing is multifamily housing that is built directly above ground-floor services and retail. This set-up not only promotes a restful, inviting culture; It also adds variety to monotonous single uses, such as strip centers or single-family housing. MU developments could be a less risky investment than other commercial zoning, as the multiple ground-floor businesses offer a buffer. The loss of one business tenant is not as impactful when there is high demand and diversity of space. And in complexes which include affordable housing units, strategically priced market-rate housing can often fill the gap.

As online shopping has led to an inevitable decline in shopping malls, retailers are embracing MU housing to resurrect cash flows. For some creative developers, repurposing strip malls into MU communities has brought an influx of business and cash flow to cities. By adding office units, some shopping mall conversions could encourage a live-work-play culture.

The City of Monroe is pondering mixed-use housing as a significant key to meeting its affordable housing goals.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Promote a variety of housing types and options in all neighborhoods, particularly in proximity to transit, employment, and educational opportunities. (3.4B) City of SeaTac, WA.

▪ Approve location of affordable housing units created Monroe Shopping Center, State Rte. 2 through city exemptions, incentives, or assistance and require these units to be generally mixed with all other dwelling units in the development. (18. 21. 040) City of Issaquah, WA.

▪ Consider that the equity generated from the sale of 4% tax credits could potentially fill any financing gap between affordable and market-rate housing in a MU development. Pittsburgh Housing Task Force, 2016

▪ Have smaller developments packaged together as a whole, for best marketability. Pittsburgh Housing Task Force, 2016

▪ Eliminate landscape buffers in the commercial area. Consider if two office buildings or a restaurant and a store need buffering from each other. Create incentives to provide multiple housing types in existing districts through dimensional standards (i.e., enable small lots and limited buffer yards between homes). Establish or reduce block lengths or perimeters to produce better connections and increase walkability. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

▪ Require specific design standards in MU developments which foster and TERMS stimulate tenant interaction and not discourage it, such as large common areas, innovative and high-ceilinged ground floor retail and office space, Commercial Linkage Fee – A and vegetated landscapes. Tenant interaction may lead to tenant retention fee charged to developers of and ultimately higher cash flow and returns on investments for MU new office or retail properties developers. and used to fund the development of affordable ▪ Define mixed-use areas/activity centers specifically in land use plans (on a housing. neighborhood, community, and/or regional scale), and designate preferred locations for them. Landscape Buffer- Vegetation or a physical barrier used to ▪ Consider the suitability and specific design features of a commercial linkage reduce the impact of a use of fee policy for developers of MU with retail space. Advocates claim this policy land on adjacent areas which could produce five to 10 times the amount of affordable housing some cities are significantly different in receive under their current incentive programs. character, density or intensity.

▪ Permit residents in the upper floors of buildings in existing commercially zoned districts. ▪ Require mixed-use developments near transit. ▪ Use market studies to ensure an appropriate amount of commercial- and residentially-zoned land is developed. ▪ Avoid requiring more vertically mixed uses than the market can support.

▪ Ensure that single-use commercial strip developments are held to the same high design and other standards required for mixed-use developments. ▪ Encourage mixed-use developments in all commercial zoning districts.

Multifamily Tax Exemptions (MFTEs) The Multifamily Property Tax Exemption program, enacted by the State in 1995 and significantly amended in 2007 as a provision of RCW 84.14, allows cities with insufficient residential opportunities in their urban centers to implement a tax exemption on new multifamily buildings and redevelopment in compact Mixed-Use districts. By supporting mixed- income residential development in the urban centers, the MFTE program ensures affordability as the community grows. It offers an 8-year property tax exemption on improvements and market-rate housing for 4 units or more, and a 12-year exemption to multifamily housing developments with at least 20% affordable housing units offered to low and middle-income residents. If the property use changes before the exemption ends, back-taxes are recovered, based on the difference between the taxes paid and the taxes which would have been paid without the tax exemption.

The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) authorizes cities to mitigate with developers for negotiable incentives in return for the MFTE. (See “Negotiable Incentives” section for details. A recent study shows that MFTEs can improve a development’s financial performance. However, findings are also considered “inconclusive, due to minimal tracking and reporting by cities” in MFTE programs.33 Bellingham City Planner Chris Koch commented that the extensive paperwork and annual tracking of tenant income required for the 12-year affordable housing MFTE option has disincentivized developers.

To date, the City of Monroe has not codified this tax exemption, but exploring the MFTE program is one of the city’s top priorities. JLARC’s Examples of MFTE variation

33 The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission, “2019 Tax Report on MFTEs”

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Offer 12-year tax exemptions for residentially deficient urban centers. (MC5. 88) City of Wenatchee, WA.

▪ Offer a multifamily tax exemption for developers which agree to provide public benefits within buildings within the city’s downtown core. Extend the tax exemption an additional four years for developments that devote 20 % of units as affordable for low- or moderate-income households. (3. 94. 020). City of Auburn, WA.

▪ Adopt an approach to provide property tax abatements to vacant land intended to be developed as low-income housing. State of Oregon, 1985

“Give nothing for free!” City Planner, WA.

▪ Offer a tax abatement from real estate tax for up to 30 months during the construction of residential housing. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

▪ Commit to expanding the MFTE to transit communities (3. 6I) City of SeaTac, WA.

▪ Offer a multifamily tax exemption in five specific areas of the city. Bel-Red downtown, Eastgate, Crossroads Village, and Wilburton Commercial Area: The exemption lasts up to 12 years if at least 20 % of units within the development are reserved as affordable (4. 52. 090). The mix and configuration of affordable units must be substantially proportional to the mix and configuration of the total housing units in the development, and if the Adopted Biennial Budget development contains multiple buildings, the developer cannot include all affordable units in the same building. City of Bellevue, WA.

▪ Create a Multifamily Tax Exemption as authorized by RCW 84. 14. City of Blaine, WA.

▪ Streamline paperwork and annual tracking of income required for 12-year MFTE options.

▪ In addition to recovering back taxes for properties which terminate affordable housing before the exemption ends, apply heavy per-unit noncompliance fines and state these conditions in development agreements.

▪ Create an automated flagging system of affordable housing status expiration and require developments submit annual reporting of number of affordable housing units and associated revenue, to encourage compliance with MFTEs.

Larger Unit Sizes Property Tax Exemptions for Urban

State law does not limit the type or size of units that may qualify Multifamily Housing 2019 V for MFTE tax exemptions, and the majority of MFTE housing units appear to be sized for small families or individuals. Approximately 75% of the MFTE units created between 2007 and 2018 are studios or one-bedroom.34 As the median household size for the City of Monroe is 2. 98 persons, two to three bedrooms may better address the city’s larger household needs.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Require at least 15% of units to have two or more bedrooms. City of Bellevue, WA.

▪ Encourage large units by applying stricter affordability requirements for smaller units. All three require that units with fewer than two bedrooms be affordable at lower-income thresholds. This in turn, results in lowering the maximum monthly rental price for smaller units. Cities of Seattle, Bellingham and Shoreline, WA.

▪ Mandate a percentage or minimum unit size of two bedrooms per unit in multifamily housing developments ½ mile or less from public transit, regardless of MFTE status.

34 JLARC, July 2019 report

The City of Bellingham’s Story: MFTEs When a major retailer had left the DC area to relocate at the mall, Bellingham initiated the MFTE in their community to incentivize new development. Start-up businesses increased in this neighborhood and the city invested in revamping sidewalks to revive the DC. But no significant improvement took place until market-rate and affordable housing was built in this area. Early programs adopted to stimulate revitalization of the downtown after the retail exodus had little effect. It was not until the MFTE was adopted, that substantial new investment and redevelopment occurred. To date, 22 MFTE projects with 1,005 housing units have been built or are under construction, resulting in tens of millions of dollars in new private investments in DC areas. The average project size has 46 units.

Of the two market-rate and affordable housing rate MFTE options, all of the developers have chosen the market-rate (8-year exemption) option. During the same period, affordable housing providers such as the Bellingham Housing Authority, Catholic Housing Services and Mercy Housing have developed 8 new projects in the DC with 364 affordable housing units. Significant streetscape improvements were made as a result of innovative negotiable incentives. The central business district, with its mix of affordable and mixed-rate housing, is now earning the highest revenues in Bellingham. Mixed-use housing plans offer easily available retail, restaurant and office space in an environment which invites pedestrians to linger and enjoy their surroundings. The MFTE is viewed as an enormous success and credited with the downtown evolving into an attractive and vibrant mixed-use urban center.35

35 Information, Courtesy Bellingham City Planner II Chris Koch

Negotiable Incentives

See (link)for the City of Bellingham’s Business (housing) Incentives list. See Appendix II Negotiable Incentives

Requiring or offering developers to choose from a set number of negotiable incentives allows room for mediation and provides a win-win situation for both parties, as street beautification increases property values. The city may benefit from a compiled list of tiered options. For example, requiring multifamily housing developers to choose two First-Tier options and one Second-Tier option from a given list of street beautification incentives, provides creative choice and a no-cost method to beautify the city with set design standards.

The City of Monroe has various incentives in its municipal ordinances, and is open to exploring additional options.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Offer incentive programs for developers to preserve, replace or build additional affordable housing units. (3. 6C) City of SeaTac, WA.

▪ Require street beautification negotiable incentives through the city’s parking reduction allowance, intended to promote alternative transportation. See BMC 20.37.540E code provision wording for how it allows for negotiated benefits. One example of this code sites, “The applicant must demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the director, how the proposed mitigation will be adequate and proportionate to the requested parking reduction. Parking reductions authorized by this subsection can not be combined with those allowed in BMC 20.12.010 (A)(5). City of Bellingham, WA.

▪ Include development incentives such as credit enhancement, a density bonus program, fee waivers, and surplus property for affordable housing and other public benefits. King County’s Affordable Housing Incentive Program

▪ Allow developers to build unapproved unit types such as attached housing, exceed height limitations, or provide more or less open space. Reduce required road paving by developers. Subsidize or provide infrastructure by the jurisdiction. The Urban Land Institute (ULI)

▪ Adopt local Affordable Housing Benefit ordinances to enhance the financial feasibility for developing diverse housing options. PLAN-Boulder County, Boulder, CO.

▪ Offer parking reduction in DC area, waterfront and Fairhaven by 100%, and in urban villages by 30%. The city has (2) parking garages and some surface lots, totaling about 2,000 lots. A recent study

determined there are currently excess parking lots waiting to be utilized as development increases. (20.37.540E)City of Bellingham, WA.

▪ See the City of Bellevue’s link, Pedestrian Corridor and Major Public Open Space Design Guidelines, under Form-Based Codes in this whitepaper, to view specific visuals and textual descriptions of street furnishings.

▪ Option to build passenger shelters at bus stops within ½ mile of the property.

Older Single-Family Housing “House-rich and cash-strapped” is a common term for many older homeowners, especially in pricy housing markets with high property tax rates. On average, houses depreciate 1-3 % annually36. As retention of properly maintained older housing is less expensive than building new affordable housing developments, it is vital to create incentives to enhance and preserve older housing stock. Properties in states of disrepair can be improved and remain affordable. Seniors often reside in their homes, which have been passed down through generations. And yet, retired residents often struggle with a limited income and are financially unable to update and maintain their properties.

Tax relief policies often benefit elderly homeowners or non-elderly lower income residents who have resided in their home for a minimum specified number of years. If their monthly housing costs remain largely stable, they will more likely be able to reside in their neighborhoods, despite the drastic rise in property values around them.

Washington State law, RCW 84.37, allows property tax deferral for homeowners with limited income. Homeowners with combined disposable incomes of $57,000 or less may pay their second half of their property tax installment due in October of the current year. The deferred amount accrues simple interest until repayment is complete and is based on an average of the federal short-term rate, plus 2%. Deferrals must be paid when the home is sold, the applicant passes away, or the home is no longer used as the primary residence. Residents must own their home for five years, occupy it as a primary residence, and have equity to secure the interest of the State of Washington in the property. Owners of older homes in the City of Monroe may qualify for this tax deferment.

It should be noted that more than 15% of Monroe’s housing stock is more than 50 years old.37 A number of these homes may be in need of repair, rehabilitation or have already been demolished. The Monroe Historical Society does not have current records of these properties, but estimates there are approximately 1,000 older homes in this city. By the year 2035, Monroe’s age-65-and-over population of

36 Plantetizen.com 37 2015 Monroe Comprehensive Plan

approximately 2,800 seniors will be expected to have doubled in 2,035, compared to 2010 figures38. In turn, a focus on older homes and senior citizens could be two-fold: to preserve, rehabilitate and potentially add density to existing older housing stock; and to accommodate non-home-owning seniors with affordable and market-rate multifamily housing and other residential options.

• The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Allow older housing within the High-Density Residential District, with up to 60 dwelling units per acre, compared to 22 dwelling units per acre in another (unnamed) district. (18. 14. 010) City of Tukwila, WA.

▪ Codify standards for older adult housing to ensure safe and well-designed units and offer incentives for building older adult housing. Issaquah also codifies older adult housing adjustments (housing incentives) which provide the option of allowing older adult-designated housing to be used for special needs and low- income households. (18. 07. 320) City of Issaquah, WA.

Monroe Homes More than 50 and 100 Years Old

▪ Offer free minor home repairs, such as heating or plumbing work, through the city’s Home Repair Assistance Program to improve the health and safety of low-income, owner-occupied homes. City of Renton, WA.

▪ Property Tax Deferral Program Tax deferment for seniors ages 65 and older or a person called out of military service on or after January 1 of that year. All prior

years’ taxes must be paid. Applicants must own and occupy said Key property as their primary residence and the property may not be Green= 50 yrs.

income-producing. The total value of items against a property Yellow= >100 yrs. cannot exceed 100% of assessed market value. If a qualified Courtesy, Fred Cruger, Granite Falls applicant has a reverse mortgage, the property is only eligible for Historical Museum future deferrals if a subordination agreement from the mortgage lender is submitted with the application. The deferred amount must be paid upon sale or transfer of property and can be paid any time prior, without affecting future eligibility. City of Broomfield, Colorado

▪ Defer annual property tax for qualifying owners of older homes, according to RCW 84. 37. Two dozen other states permit tax deferrals. Eleven states, including California and Illinois, offer the deferrals

38 2015 Monroe Comprehensive Plan

directly rather than through municipalities. In Oregon, which has the state’s oldest tax-deferral program, more than 10 % of eligible homeowners have participated. The Boston Globe

▪ Create an active public education effort geared to owners of older homes to explore eligibility for Washington’s Property Tax Deferral for Homeowners with Limited Income (RCW 84.37.030) This could help owners to acquire savings to repair and maintain their homes. Once they sell their home, taxes can be recouped by the city from sale profits. See Current Legislation section.

▪ Rezone older housing areas to R15 or 25. When owners sell, the new zoning takes place.

▪ Authorize split-rate taxes to encourage owners of older homes to improve their property without the risk of an overall tax increase. Create documentation to oversee follow-through on improvements. ▪ Offer low-interest loans or grant programs for housing upkeep through city funding, a community- based organization or a local financial institution.

▪ Institute a public education campaign geared to owners of older housing stock through town meetings and periodic distribution of a brochure which outlines the incentives and opportunities available to preserve older homes. Address such incentives as deferred property tax, split-rate taxes, home repair assistance, the DOE Weatherization Assistance Program, FEMA’s Disaster Assistance program, housing repair programs, disaster assistance, and authorization of ADU construction (and potential rental profit) on premises.

▪ Promote FEMA’s disaster assistance program to home owners whose personal insurance may not cover damage from disaster. See (link).

▪ Offer sales tax waivers for rehabilitation with proof of need for rehab, documentation of house age and sales and labor receipts for renovation. Set a minimum proof of rehab expenses for tax waivers.

▪ Change zoning to increase density in older large lot homes.

▪ Permit fee waivers for rehabilitation of older housing stock.

▪ Increase funding and expand eligibility for older home repair and weatherization programs, such as HVAC systems, roofs, and degrading structures. ▪ Utilize the Monroe Historical Society’s data base of older homes to promote services to homeowners.

Parking “Bad parking lot designs can blight an entire neighborhood, wasting valuable real estate and creating a sense of placelessness.”

City Planner, Bellingham, WA.

Poorly-planned parking requirements can have a profound influence on cities. A recent study found that parking can reduce the potential number of units at a site by up to 50 % in some multifamily housing developments.39 Another study estimated up to $300 a month could be saved in unit rent if required parking stalls were reduced. While transit-oriented developments are intended to help reduce automobile dependence, parking requirements can undermine that goal by enticing new residents to drive. A recent Urban Land Institute study cited minimum parking requirements were the most noted barrier to housing development. Reducing parking lot requirements per dwelling unit could ultimately reduce housing construction costs, land waste, congestion, outmigration, commuter time, and carbon footprints. It could also result in more downtown development, in turn increasing moderately priced housing, which attracts new renters.

Parking space is expensive ─ costing developers $10,000 to $50,000 per parking space, depending on the type of structure.40 One local study indicates the average building provides 30 % more parking than it requires.41 In addition, a 2015 GreenTRIP analysis studied 68 affordable housing complexes in the Bay Area, and concluded 31% of the 9,387 total parking spaces were empty at night.

The minimum parking requirements in many local codes are grounded on demand studies conducted in sprawled areas. These studies may reflect parking demand in settings where shoppers and workers must drive ─ not in mixed-use settings where walking is encouraged. Such regulations could overestimate parking demand. By reasonably reducing parking and designing more connected, walkable developments, developers may be able to use that land for more affordable housing units. Locally accessed businesses may observe increased revenue, enhanced use of alternative modes of transportation, and improved health outcomes for residents. Lowering parking requirements could also provide incentive for homes to be built in higher opportunity areas, closer to jobs and services.

The City of Monroe’s current parking codes require 1. 5 parking spaces per unit. In its Downtown Commercial district, all units which are not residential are exempt from parking standards and design.

39 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Parking Spaces/Community Spaces: Finding the Balance Through Smart Growth Solutions” 40 Nonprofithousing.org, “Rethinking Residential Parking” 41 King County, WA., “Right Size Parking”

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

“Our approach is to prioritize people over cars. The more attractive and desirable the destination becomes for people (not cars), the more willing people are to walk from more distant parking lots or use alternative transportation to get to their destination.” Planner, City of Bellingham, WA.

▪ Reduce parking from 1.2 per unit to .6 to .9 per unit to reduce rent by $100 to $300 per unit. City of Seattle, WA.

▪ Allow parking codes which are flexible for negotiation, such as reducing parking, but leaving it open-ended to allow for consideration of other methods of mitigation. Allow up to 100% parking reduction in the Downtown and other specific districts, and up to 30% reduction in other urban villages. 20.37.540(E) See specific parking standards for each district. (20.37) City of Bellingham, WA.

▪ Relax parking requirements, eliminating requirements in center-city areas with frequent transit services within ¼ mile. Reduce parking requirements by 50 % in neighborhoods outside of those centers with the same minimum level of transit service. This reportedly sparked a wave of new development, including hundreds of units with no associated parking spaces. City of Seattle, WA.

▪ Allow average parking provided per dwelling unit to be about 0.55 spaces per unit, mostly in preferred growth areas like Capitol Hill and the University District, where micro-housing and studios are situated. Over the past 3 years, 52 of 219 development projects (2,400 units out of 19,000) provided no parking. This legislation has invited thousands of new service providers for on-demand transport through Uber, Lyft and taxis, etc. City of Seattle, WA.

▪ Reduce required parking space if owner builds a carriage house over 2- to 4- car parking spaces. Ravenna and Greenwood Ave., Seattle, communities.

▪ Give multifamily builders developing 50 or fewer rental units 100 % parking ratio reductions. Reduction is allowed if projects are within 0.25 miles of a bus stop or .5 miles of a train station. Developers constructing 50 units receive a 50 % reduction. Figures could be reduced for smaller cities. City of Minneapolis, MN.

▪ Require parking plans for affordable housing to implement only non-assigned parking spaces to reduce underuse. Reduce parking requirement to one parking stall for every single-family home. Exceptions to parking requirements may require a pre-application neighborhood meeting to identify and resolve issues before a formal permit application is made and an administrative decision is issued. City of Bellingham, WA.

▪ Reduce or waive parking requirements in transit corridors to help reduce general development costs. In response to a design charrette, create a Downtown Core Area Plan, eliminated parking requirements in the community’s DC district. Since then, the downtown core has experienced significant new development with hundreds of new market-rate units. City of Victoria, Canada (Planetizen.com)

▪ Create a parking overlay district in the parking code for downtown or other mixed-use areas.

▪ Consider selling “commuter permits” for residential streets in parking permit districts near mixed- use centers, with all or some of the revenue returned to the neighborhood in the form of capital repairs and improvements. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

▪ Reduce minimum off-street parking supply requirements in the overlay district based on recalculated demand resulting from alternative transportation options, the mix of land uses, and a “park once” strategy that encourages parking in one place and walking to multiple destinations. Calculate a shared parking allowance based on the specific land uses in the overlay district. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

▪ Facilitate shared parking. Encourage hotels and motels to make unused parking spots available to the public or rent out spaces with parking meters.

▪ Institute paid parking for public parking supply in parking districts. Start with off-street, publicly owned parking. Pay kiosks for on-street parking can reduce streetscape impacts such as visual clutter from individual parking meters, are more efficient, and are more convenient for customers. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

▪ Revise the tables of parking supply minimums, reducing them where possible to reflect context, land use mix, and transportation options.

▪ Allow off-site parking in dense retail districts and set limits for the distance travelled from development sites.

▪ Require a city parking study to analyze true parking needs. Identify underutilized parking lots via GIS Systems. A GIS college internship could be established for this purpose.

▪ Allow for introduction of FBCs in specified districts to simplify and eliminate any need for more detailed parking regulations.

▪ Differentiate parking requirements based on building type, access to transit and walkability.

▪ Replace chalking tires with hand-held computers for issuing tickets.

▪ Revise parking overtime regulations to provide escalating fines for repeat offenders.

▪ Develop residential parking permit provisions to safeguard neighborhoods affected by overflow.

▪ Evaluate parking stall specifications and reduce them, if possible, to increase parking supply.

▪ Implement on-street parking to add value to mixed-use and commercial properties.

▪ Create a map in the city’s Transportation Plan, identifying curbside and off-street parking and the number of stalls in stock.

▪ Lower parking requirement to 1 per unit and no assigned parking spaces to avoid underuse.

▪ Define parking maximums.

▪ Require adequate employee parking near facilities and adequately staff enforcement. One cause of parking shortages is the misuse of premium parking by employees. The closest, most convenient parking spaces ― storefront, on-street parking, for example ― could be protected for use by customers.

▪ Eliminate or reduce off-street parking requirements.

▪ Require tenant parking in an alley behind the project instead of taking up valuable space.

▪ Require three-quarters of a parking space per affordable unit in affordable senior developments. Modifications to parking design standards may be approved when they can demonstrate that on-site parking needs will be met.

▪ Minimize construction of parking spaces off-street where there is limited right-of-way to support more vehicles.

▪ Assign parking standards by building type, not just by location.

▪ Amend codes to allow bike share and car-share instead of required parking.

▪ Limit parking impact in neighborhoods with Restricted Parking Zones (RPZs).

▪ Manage on-street parking in DC area with credit-card accessible time limit meters. Meters and pricing strategies are effective tools to manage parking demand.

Permitting Priority Permitting, review and approval processes can take months to finalize and cost developers thousands of dollars every day during the waiting process, which may ultimately persuade developers to build in other jurisdictions. The Puget Sound Regional Council (PRSC) advises all cities to streamline their current permitting and review systems to identify any “administrative inefficiencies” and “eliminate unnecessary costs and barriers.” Popular techniques used to streamline permitting processes include centralized counter services, pre-application conferences, permit checklists, fast-tracking routine applications and other measures to expedite the process. The City of Monroe has recently revised its building codes and on average completes these processes within four weeks, faster than many jurisdictions.

Public Education

NIMBY “Not in my backyard!” Objection to building affordable housing developments in residential neighborhoods is a heated debate among communities and an issue every municipality is encouraged to broach through public education. NIMBYs are residents who resist development of multifamily housing, especially affordable housing, in close proximity to their homes. They protest such construction, fearing the introduction of such housing will decrease the property value of their homes, increase crime rates and the cost of utilities for existing residents, and bring added traffic congestion to their communities.

There is mixed research on the prospect of declining market values. De Genova et al researched four Chapter 40B housing developments in Massachusetts with site visits and semi-structured stakeholder interviews, and determined that these concerns were “unrealized” and “overstated.” At the same time, a recent study indicates affordable housing can lower property values42. This source says the likelihood that property values will decline as a result of proximity to affordable housing increases when:

1. The quality, design, and management of the affordable housing is poor.

2. Affordable housing is located in dilapidated neighborhoods that contain disadvantaged populations (i.e., usually low-income and predominantly minority).

3. When affordable housing residents are clustered.

In contrast, other studies report that multifamily housing is consistently accepted by neighborhoods when its design is attractive and compatible with the neighborhood style; when affordable housing units are well-managed; and when concentration of affordable housing is well-dispersed. Furthermore, evidence reveals rehabilitated housing always has beneficial outcomes for neighboring property values.

So, how can local governments address the negative NIMBY perception? Successful approaches may include:

▪ Focus on the benefits of affordable housing and how attractive affordable housing can be easily assimilated into mixed-use and/or mixed-income communities. Visually demonstrate modern types of affordable housing, such as ADUs, duplexes, tiny homes and multifamily housing complexes which blend in with the design styles of the community.

▪ Actively educate citizens in regard to the local lack of affordable housing and the city’s dire need to address the situation, along with local testimonies of those helped with affordable housing.

42 SiteSeerX, an independent research site

Provide a picture-story of what the city might look like down the road if the community fails to address this crisis.

▪ Provide trustworthy data in public education materials and a city- or county-wide video to dispel NIMBY myths:

- Work with the local Public Utilities District (PUD) to create a fact list, explaining if and how utility rates will or will not be affected by multifamily housing.

- Work with the County Assessors’ Office to list current and previous market values of single- family homes whose property values remained unaffected, both before and after introduction of multifamily housing projects after periods of at least five years.

- Obtain statistics from the Monroe Police and Snohomish County on before-and-after crime rates in neighborhoods which have received multifamily housing.

▪ Encourage a broad view of affordable housing which includes different AMI profiles of these populations.

▪ Mandate that new development, especially affordable housing or mixed-income complexes, provide downward-facing lighting to prevent light disruption and to increase acceptance of multifamily projects.

▪ Join with Snohomish County, HASCO Everett and the Washington Association of Realtors in creating a 7- to 10-minute public education video addressing NIMBY and encouraging affordable housing. Address the issues above, along with local testimonials from successful multifamily housing projects. This video could be presented regularly by city officials throughout the county, to city councils, planning commissions, public hearings, public education outreaches, and community events. A link of this video could be released through online newsletters, social media, and published in Chamber of Commerce newsletters. This may go far in increasing community acceptance and cohesion. HASCO Everett has expressed an interest with the author in co-creating such a video.

▪ Create a public education campaign addressed to owners of older housing, via town meetings and distribution of a brochure which outlines the incentives and opportunities available to preserve older homes. Some features could include: deferred property tax, split-rate taxes, home repair assistance, and authorization criteria of ADU construction on premises.

▪ Support skilled trade and labor construction education in local colleges, high schools and vocational programs to increase the construction labor force, draw in revenue-producing millennials and ultimately reduce construction costs. Work with the industry to identify gaps and partner with them in developing strategies to encourage training.

▪ Create a community and local government dashboard. Government dashboards increase transparency and open the lines of communication. They offer an influential, visual framework for local governments to share the progress of their strategic plans and their city’s opportunities with citizens and stakeholders. Developers can review city codes, permit procedures, business profiles, housing, education, tax, fiscal and population profiles to determine potential

housing investments. See (link) for how to set up a community dashboard.

▪ Identify and engage with key anchor institutions, such as Housing Hope, which has a vested interest in the community. Anchor institutions could make real estate investments to serve their program needs. Nonprofits might be less subject to market requirements than private businesses, allowing them to encourage additional private investment. The city could consider identifying anchor institutions which might have a stake in priority infill areas or have shared interests in areas such as housing rehabilitation, streetscape improvements, or public safety. For example, these entities might encourage infill development and neighborhood revitalization through employer-assisted housing programs.

▪ Implement an annual $20 registration fee to document local construction companies and contract laborers at prevailing wage and make a list available to developers. Proceeds from the fee will go into a specially earmarked city Affordable Housing Fund, apart from the General Fund.

▪ Create an incentive page entitled “Housing Trends” to draw potential developers and businesses to the City of Monroe’s website, listing a community dashboard, vacant lands, land and properties for sale, incentives, bills, new developments, new codes and housing success stories. Include a Funding Opportunities and Incentives page, similar to this (link).

▪ Personalize the city’s website with brief biographies and photos of key staff and elected officials in nature settings. Use computer-friendly font style, like Calibri. Update pictures of citizens/crowds in current community events on homepage. Some people (and developers) relate to people before they relate to ideas.

▪ Create an exit strategy and checklist that specifies the next step when all developers have completed a project.

▪ Conduct community charrettes to address such issues as affordable housing, annexation and older housing opportunities. See (link) for guidance on conducting a charrette. Michigan State University School of Planning, Design and Construction, National Charrette Institute

▪ Create a regional network of large- and small-scale nonprofits who lean toward public-private funding models. Post a list of local real estate investment trusts on the city’s website.

▪ Require all low-income and homelessness program facilities to post in their community areas, Community Transit’s current bus schedules and cost-saving reduced fare programs listed under Public Transit in this paper. Post these in acrylic-encased sign holders at local bus stops if schedules are not already posted, to facilitate ridership.

▪ Consider expansion and renovation of the Wagner Performing Arts Center into a more active, vibrant focal point of the community. A thriving civic center bonds communities and draws revenue- generating millennials ─ an attractive draw for potential multifamily housing developers. Built in 1937, this old junior high school is currently owned by the Monroe School District and leased for $1 a year by the Monroe Arts Center in exchange for maintenance and restoration. The city could consider utilizing the low-interest USDA RD Facilities Loan outlined in the Appendix III, Funding Sources Explained section of this whitepaper. Community Development Block Grants (CDBGs) allow funds to be used toward remodeling vacant schools. The Community Foundation of Snohomish County is also a viable funding source for renovations.

▪ Post a “First come, first serve” waitlist on the City of Monroe website so residential applicants can monitor their standing for affordable housing. Work in collaboration with the managers from the city’s affordable housing developments through an automated reporting program. Assign personal passwords to applicants to privately access and track online waitlists.

Public Transportation

See (link) for Monroe’s CT Bus Schedule. Community Transit Long-Range Plan (link); Community Transit Six-Year Transit Development Plan (link)

Public transit provides an economical alternative to congested roadways, offers cost-efficient commutes, and inspires attractive, walkable communities by reducing automobile dependence. Public transit helps to shape our culture and economy: For every $10 million dollars spent on transit, business sales increase by $30 million. Each family who eliminates a car and travels on public transit, on average saves $10,000 a year.43

Addressing Resistance to Public Transit The city is working hand-in-hand with Community Transit (CT), the public transit authority in Snohomish County, to change the trend of single-driver work commutes in this community. Monroe’s 2015 Comprehensive Plan states 72% of its residents choose to commute alone by car.

Monroe’s Special Needs Ridership A high special needs population in Monroe relies on CT to get around: CT says boardings qualifying as “special needs” (age 65+, age 18 and under, low-income riders and disabled) represent approximately 66% of the total boardings on Routes 270 and 271 ─ 25% higher in ridership than CT’s system-wide special needs boardings. These routes serve the Skykomish Valley communities of Gold Bar, Sultan and Monroe, as well as Snohomish and Everett.

Monroe’s CT Bus Routes Monroe is part of the Community Transit – Public Transit Benefit Area, but is not within the boundaries of the larger regional transportation authority known as Sound Transit (ST). Monroe has a Park and Ride with 103 car stalls and two bike stalls, but no major transit center. The city is served by three routes: 270, 271, and 424. Routes 270 and 271 combines for departures from Monroe every 30 minutes during weekday peak hours and hourly during the rest of the day. Weekday service operates hourly from Gold Bar and Sultan.

In 2015, Community Transit worked with Monroe and social service providers to expand service to the west and southwest part of the city. That same year, weekend service between Monroe, Sultan and Gold Bar was improved from 120 minutes to 60 minutes. For the upcoming September 2019 Service Change, a later night eastbound and westbound trip will be added to Route 271. Route 424 travels on the Hwy 522 corridor: from Monroe to Bothell and then on to Seattle via I-405, SR 520 and I-5. Between Monroe and Seattle, bus stops are available at freeway flyer stops in Woodinville, Totem Lake and at Evergreen Station on SR 520. Transfers to other destinations are available at these locations. Route 424

43 Smartcitiesdive.com

has only two trips to Seattle in the morning and two trips back from Seattle in the afternoon. There is no route with 15-minute service in Monroe.

CT local Bus Routes in Monroe 2019

CT Bus Route to Bellevue and Seattle 2019

Working with the Light Rail Extension As CT continues to expand its Swift lines along the I5 corridor, one of the major components of the Transit Development Plan (TDP) update affecting Monroe will be to establish a service framework for the 2024 Lynnwood Link Light Rail extension. For existing peak-hour commuter routes like the 424, CT is currently trying to establish whether these routes continue to Seattle or if they transfer customers to Link Light Rail at Lynnwood or Mountlake Terrace.

The light rail will provide a more consistent and reliable trip, as well as opportunities to reach new destinations more conveniently. If routes such as the 424 were to transition to end at Lynnwood, the resources saved by not having the bus go to Seattle could be reinvested to provide more trips. Other options for Route 424 could involve direct service to the UW-Bothell campus or the Canyon Park area.

CT’s Promotional Efforts with Monroe CT’s promotional efforts to the city are extensive: providing later Sunday trips on local transit service, donating surplus vans to organizations such as Miracles and Memories Academy in Monroe, working with large Monroe employers to develop customized Employee Transportation Programs, and assisting employers with finding alternatives ways for their employees to commute. More recent items of interest to Monroe would include additional transit service during the Evergreen State Fair and promoting that

service via news releases and posts on Facebook and Twitter. CT also recently worked with Snoqualmie Valley Transportation to promote their transit options and transportation priorities survey.

Bus Shelters CT relies on jurisdictions such as Monroe and the State Department of Transportation to provide roadway infrastructure, sidewalks and bus stop pads. CT installs and maintains its own bus shelters where high enough ridership warrants such a need. CT has provided shelters on Hwy 2, Fryelands Boulevard, and on Main Street in Monroe.

Additional Transit Benefits for Low-Income Residents, Seniors and the Disabled Some of the following customized transit services are currently underutilized. The city could benefit from an active public education plan to promote Community Transit’s cost-saving reduced fare programs, below:

• Reduced Fares and the ORCA LIFT Program As of July 2019, Community Transit began offering a low-income fare for residents through the ORCA LIFT Program. Benefits of this program are similar to those provided with the Regional Reduced Fare Permit. Bus fare rates are $1. 25 for all routes within Snohomish County, 50% less than the regular adult fare for transit service. For eligible commuter bus riders travelling to and from King County, the fare is $2. 00. The Regional Reduced Fare Permit/ORCA LIFT Card is a regional pass accepted by CT, Sound Transit and King County Metro. In July 2019, Community Transit added low-income to the “Reduced Fare” category which has already included (65+)/Disabled/Medicare recipients. People with a household income of less than 200 % of the federal poverty level qualify for ORCA LIFT.

• Snoqualmie Valley Transportation (SVT) Route Map (link) This service utilizes a smaller vehicle and is operated by the Mount Si Senior Center. Bus service has been operating from Duvall, north to Monroe since 2018. The service stops at CT bus stops, as well as other locations. Suggested donation amount to ride is a $1. 00 fee, although the amount of donations is optional. The City of Monroe was very involved and came to CT to assist in getting this established. However, usership in the city is not significant.

• The Duvall-Monroe Shuttle (link) Since August 2018, the Duvall-Monroe Shuttle has connected riders between Duvall and Monroe, approximately every 90 minutes Monday through Friday, for a suggested donation of $1. It is underutilized.

• Dial-A-Ride Transportation (DART) (link) DART is an ADA-mandated service comparable with local fixed-route buses and is operated by Senior Services (Homage) of Snohomish County. It is designed to transport people whose condition or disability prevents them from using larger fixed-route buses. This para-transit service can pick up or take a qualified customer to or from locations within 3/4 of a mile of a Community Transit local, non-commuter bus route. It is available during the same CT local bus route hours, and trips take about the same time as bus rides.

Riders must apply to qualify, and notify this program at least several days in advance to pick them up. This service is utilized for trips such as medical appointments, but can be made for any reason. The cost is $2. 50 for all ages. As of July 2019, there were 101 registered DART customers residing in Monroe. From January 2019 to June of this year, 1,456 DART trips were taken into Monroe and 1,256 trips were taken to travel out of Monroe.44

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Create codes which encourage or mandate building of affordable housing along transit lines, or within ¼ to ½ a mile.

▪ Require a maximum limit of 50 homes per acre in mass transit centers. MBA

▪ Require a maximum limit of 25 homes per acre in high-frequency bus stop areas. MBA

▪ Contract with a community bike or scooter rental program. In May of this year, the City of Everett launched a 3-month pilot Lime Scooter program, authorizing 100 scooters to alleviate congestion. Bike shares target lower income neighborhoods and scooters rent at $15/hour in this city. A report is forthcoming, but the Everett City Council has heard a number of complaints about riders leaving scooters on streets or sidewalks and riding without required helmets.45

44 CT Information provided, courtesy of Scott Ritterbush, Community Transit Senior Transportation Planner. 45 Myeverettnews.com

Retirement Centers Retirement comes with several lifestyle changes. Reduced mobility, age-related health issues, reduced income and potential isolation can spur seniors to make life-altering choices. Seniors are presented with various dwelling options: remaining in their homes, moving in with their grown children, house-sharing with another senior, renting an ADU, exploring subsidized housing or LIHTC/HUD affordable housing, co-housing communities, or life-plan retirement centers. As seniors account for a growing sector of Monroe’s population, affordable housing accommodations are vital.

The city currently has three affordable housing complexes serving seniors to accommodate its rapidly growing elderly population. Monroe also boasts an active and well-organized Monroe Community Senior Center.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Specify explicit quality and design standards for older adult housing. (19. 205.070) City of Federal Way, WA.

▪ Encourage the dispersal of special needs and older adult housing throughout the city. (HS 3.3) City of Burien, WA. ▪ Exempt developers of long-term care facilities and transitional housing from various impact fees, including park impact fees. (3.36. 050, 22.20.030) City of Woodinville, WA.

▪ Allow older adult housing developments up to 60 dwelling units per acre, compared to only 22 dwelling units per acre for other populations. (18.14.010) City of Tukwila, WA.

▪ Create a specialized Senior Housing Overlay (SSHO) zone. This classification is intended to allow specialized older adult housing developments at densities higher than normally permitted when the development is proximate to facilities and/or services which especially benefit older adults. Certain fee exemptions to homeless housing programs apply. (12.04.030) City of Bothell, WA.

SEPA Appeals

As the city considers expanding its affordable housing stock, enacting codes to help quickly dismiss baseless SEPA appeals can save staff time and developers costly delays. Washington’s State Environmental Policy Act, or SEPA, is the state’s premier policy for protecting the environment—a sweeping package of environmental rules established in 1971. Some experts warn that SEPA could be used as a tool by anti-development protestors to delay construction of multifamily housing. Anyone averse to a proposed apartment building for whatever reason could file a legal appeal through SEPA which delays construction, placing a significant financial burden on development projects.

For example, in a 2014 SEPA appeal for an apartment building in West Seattle, neighbors opposed construction of a three-story, 30-unit apartment building located on a busy arterial street.46 The appeal cited no issues other than “inadequacy of review of project.” This neighborhood association withdrew appeal after reaching a settlement, for which the developer agreed to write a $25,000 check to be donated to a nonprofit entity selected by that association. Anti-growth activists may opt to use appeals to block zoning changes and other regulations intended to encourage homebuilding.

The City of Monroe currently provides a detailed SEPA Environmental Checklist for developers.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Lessen SEPA’s harm to affordability by “reducing the number of housing projects subject to SEPA.” Raise the housing unit threshold which triggers SEPA review. The state sets the baseline standard at 20 units, but allows local governments to adjust this standard.47 One study claims that if these changes were employed city-wide, higher thresholds would remain in place until the entire city exceeded its total growth target, and faster growing neighborhoods would not lose their elevated SEPA thresholds as soon.48

▪ Identify questions on a SEPA checklist that are “adequately covered” by local regulations and therefore do not need to be addressed by developers.

46 The Sightline Institute 47 Seattle’s HALA Plan 48 The Sightline Institute

Short-Term Vacation Rentals/Airbnb’s Terms Airbnb’s are changing our communities, both culturally and Airbnb - Established in 2008, this online economically. Overnight renters save considerably on lodging costs, rental marketplace makes money by compared to hotel fees, and enjoy the feel of a personalized residential charging guests and hosts for vacation dwelling. Property owners have opportunities to earn extra income rental stays in private homes or from unused dwelling spaces, and at the same time, contribute to their apartments booked through their communities. Cities also benefit from the increased tax revenue of website. short-term rentals ─ and new visitors to their community, who might not have otherwise come, if more costly hotels were the only options. “Vacation Rental/Short-Term Rental” -

A furnished room within a dwelling, However, home-sharing services like Airbnb and HomeAway are vacation houses, condo units, creating an awkward dilemma for some jurisdictions, especially in areas apartments, or an Accessory Dwelling Unit, rented out on a daily or weekly where housing costs are high. Cities are struggling to balance the basis for periods of less than 30 days. economic boost from the growth of home-sharing services with the pressing need for affordable housing, siting home-sharing services take Hotel/Motel Tax - A consumer tax on apartments off the long-term rental market and contribute to lodging charges for periods of less than escalating rental costs. Real estate investors know that if supply is 30 consecutive days for hotels, motels, limited and demand is high, then the real estate property prices can rooming houses, private campgrounds, RV parks, and similar facilities. increase, along with rents. Some real estate investors purchase Revenues can be used by cities toward properties for the sole purpose of renting them out, while not actually tourism. This is usually 1-5% of the residing in these properties as primary dwellers. There is concern when listing price of the rental, including short-term rentals are vacant for relatively long periods of time, as they cleaning fees. can rob cities of full-time affordable housing opportunities. Some studies claim that while Airbnb’s may be supporting economic revenue, profit may also occur by travelers staying in hotels or other alternative accommodations. Unmonitored Airbnb rentals can bring unwanted tenant noise and stress neighborhood infrastructures by taking up limited parking spaces and adding increased trash loads.

9/2019 day snapshot of Airbnb’s in Monroe Map Key: ▪ 1-night stays, ▪2-night stays

The State of Washington’s Short-Term Housing Law of 2019 requires guests who book Airbnb listings to pay the following taxes, processed as part of their reservation: Washington Combined Sales Tax ─ 7.0 to 9.6% of the listing price, including any cleaning fees (plus guest fees for State Sales Tax) for Rentals in the City of Monroe August 2, 2019 reservations 29 nights and shorter. The combined state (6.5%), https://www.airdna. co/vacation-rental: Airbnb

county (Snohomish County 0%) and city (2.8%) sales tax rate for Monroe, WA. is 9.3%. In addition to sales taxes, many municipalities in Washington impose hotel/motel taxes and convention center taxes, also reported on the state excise tax return. The IRS publishes local rates at this (link). The final bill contains a provision requiring short-term rental operators to maintain primary liability insurance of at least one million dollars to cover the rental unit.

In the most expensive municipal referendum in the State of New Jersey’s history, in November 2019, 69% of Jersey City voters voted in favor of preserving ordinances regulating short-term rentals. Since officials approved Airbnb’s in 2015, the number of active Airbnb’s in the city has increased ten-fold. Reports of investors purchasing multiple houses to rent solely as Airbnb’s were concerning. In response to this rapid increase and the city’s concern for resultant decreases in affordable housing, new Jersey City ordinances were codified, below.

On an average day, in August 2019, the City of Monroe had 35 active rentals posted on vacation rental websites (see graph, prior page). Seventy-two percent comprised entire home rentals, with an average of 2.4 bedrooms and 6.7 guests per night. Quarterly rental growth was 7%, while 32% of Airbnb rentals in Monroe were available year-round.

The City of Monroe implements a Combined Sales Tax and Hotel/Motel Tax on short-term rentals, although it does not regulate them.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Prohibit short-term rentals in buildings with more than four units unless the owner is present and the building’s condominium association permits it. City of Jersey City, NJ.

▪ Require an annual 60-day cap for short-term rentals if the property owner is not on-site. City of Jersey City, NJ.

▪ Prohibit renters from serving as short-term rental hosts. City of Jersey City, NJ.

▪ Require owners to have a business license, additional parking for guests, meet fire safety and signage codes and be occupying units with multiple rentals. City of Renton, WA.

▪ Allow owners to rent out their primary dwelling residence, provided they reside in the same residence for at least six months of the year. All short-term rental operators will be required to apply for a short-term rental license and pay a yearly fee. Owners of a second unit on their property, such as a duplex, can apply for a second short-term rental license. Hosts desiring to offer homes with four or more bedrooms for short-term rentals must apply for a different type of permit with a more extensive process. Hosts must include their license number on all ads. Require three-night minimum stays for popular coastal areas and downtown. Short-term rental hosts will also be required to pay a fee of $3.96 for whole-home rentals or $2.73 for room rentals, which will go toward the city’s affordable housing. Effective July, 2019. City of San Diego, CA.

▪ Allow vacation rentals in any dwelling unit and do not require any city permits. A city business license is required. City of Snohomish, WA.

▪ Require short-term rentals to obtain a general business license filed with the IRS, different from the regulatory permit or operator’s license that may also be required. Employed by many Washington cities.

▪ Require the renter to reside in the home if he/she is renting individual rooms or a separate unit. However, if the owner is renting out an entire home, then he/she is not required to reside there. City of Tacoma, WA.

▪ Property owner or Airbnb host must occupy the property as a primary residence at least 245 days per year. This is a popular option for real estate investors thinking of owning a short-term rental property. City of Kirkland, WA.

▪ Offer the option to file for a conditional use permit to operate as a bed and breakfast.

▪ Require an inspection of property to make sure it meets minimum habitability standards.

▪ Require a special permit, a general business license, or an operator’s license to rent out a home through a vacation rental service in Monroe. Deposit all related fees into Affordable Housing Fund.

▪ Outlaw investment real estate used for Airbnb’s. Create criteria to define such investment.

▪ Require all advertising of rental property for overnight accommodations to occur on an online platform (Airbnb or similar sites).

▪ When the entire dwelling unit is rented, it shall be occupied by no more than five (5) people who are travelling together as a group.

▪ Require that owners of vacation rentals use no more street parking than that originally allotted them, or owners must provide on-property parking for guests in their alley or driveways.

▪ When a portion of the dwelling unit is rented, only one room may be rented at one time and that room may be occupied by no more than three people.

▪ Enact legislation which gives homeowner associations authority to ban Airbnb’s in their neighborhoods.

Sidewalks Wider sidewalks invite pedestrians, connect communities, and grow local revenue. As the jurisdiction transforms into a more walkable community, installation of wider sidewalks can be used as negotiable incentives or mandated as requirements for multifamily housing developers. Beardsley Avenue, Bothell, WA.

Over the past few years, the city has expanded sidewalks to eight feet in the downtown corridor, and updated the Main Street Plaza project by enlarging sidewalks and removing the curb, gutter and parking lane. The enforced width of sidewalks is five feet in residential and eight feet in commercial, industrial and multifamily residential property use. The city also states it is the responsibility of property owners abating upon public sidewalks to keep these sidewalks maintained, safe and repaired of all defects.

The city’s Public Works Department is actively pursuing grant programs to enhance Monroe’s pedestrian and bicycle facilities in line with Monroe’s Comprehensive Plan. The aim is to increase sidewalk connectivity between residential areas and neighboring schools. The Department has recently applied for and received grant money from the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) and the Washington Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) to improve connectivity in shared use paths and sidewalks, creating a continuous and safe network of both neighborhood and federally classified arterials. These provisions will help to provide easier access and walkability between older and new developments.

The city is open to exploring additional sidewalk ordinances as it considers expanding the DC and other areas.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Require new developers to replace frontage sidewalks with 10-foot sidewalks in DC districts and 5- foot sidewalks in residential districts. Require developers pay for and place sidewalks on the property to the left of new housing developments, as well as in front of them. City of Bellingham, WA.

▪ Adopt codes to incorporate trees and other shade structures in mixed-use districts, addressing maintenance and irrigation, as well as landowner responsibilities.

▪ Designate one or more pedestrian districts, where communities can relate to as a safe and pleasant place.

▪ Create pedestrian environment standards for mixed-use districts to aid in pedestrian safety and convenience, including on-street parking, build-to lines, minimum façade transparency, building entrance spacing and canopy standards.

▪ Revise zoning development and subdivision standards to require sidewalks on both sides of streets in all developments.

▪ Amend existing codes to increase density by creating flexibility in street widths and sidewalks. City of Monroe, WA. Comprehensive Plan

Pervious Sidewalks

Pervious sidewalks might benefit the rainy Pacific Northwest region. Pervious concrete is a special type of concrete with a high porosity used for concrete flatwork applications, allowing water from precipitation and other sources to pass directly through, reportedly reducing the runoff from a site and allowing groundwater recharge.

In general, initial costs for pervious concrete pavements are higher than those for conventional concrete or asphalt paving. Vendors say total costs can be substantially lower. They also claim that pervious concrete has lower installation costs, permits continued use of existing sewer systems, and increases land utilization by doubling as a stormwater management system ─ eliminating the need for retention ponds. With a reported 20- to 40-year sustainability equal to that of concrete, pervious sidewalks could lower life cycle costs for the city.

The city has recently installed pervious sidewalks, with the majority located in the Downtown Corridor on Main Street. Although they are deemed attractive, the city’s Deputy Public Works Director states these sidewalks require low to moderate maintenance. In areas with heavy sediment, they require frequent cleaning.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Install pervious sidewalks in two city street sections (1/2 the public sidewalk and for some private). City of Seattle, WA. ▪ Mandate installation of pervious sidewalks in flood-prone areas. ▪ Require pervious sidewalks in areas of enhanced building activity, such as downtown multifamily and mixed-use housing.

100

Single-Family Homes

Even before the soaring home prices of the last 15 years, home ownership was seen as the most important wealth-building tool for American middle-class families. Homeownership can provide families the opportunity to accrue wealth through home equity, assuming the family can maintain its mortgage payment. It can benefit the local community by increasing civic involvement, funding schools, providing revenue for cities, and ultimately increasing neighborhood solidarity.

Additionally, paying off a mortgage is economically the same as putting money in savings, and the forced nature of mortgage payments makes them a powerful forced savings program. Some authorities claim the median homeowner’s equity is three times as big as the median retirement savings. Washington home prices are rising faster than any other state in the union, due to the strong economy, high employment, relative wage growth to other states, and the inviting beauty of the Pacific Northwest.49 So, it is reasonable that the inability of families to save for a down-payment has been cited as a primary barrier to home ownership in this state.

Single-family homes represent approximately two-thirds of Monroe’s total housing stock.50 In this report, the City of Monroe wishes to focus primarily on affordable housing geared to the population earning 60% AMI and below, which generally excludes market-rate single-family dwellings.

49 Core Logic, Inc. 50 Monroe 2015 Comprehensive Plan

101

Small Lot Development

A significant number of communities have established small lot zones with reduced minimum lots size requirements. This tends to reduce the cost of land with each residence and allows developments with more units per acre. Other jurisdictions have allowed attached housing, corner lot duplexes, cottage or clustered housing, and other flexible options to prevent potential units from being lost due to space constraints, such as a creek.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Create development standards for small-lot, single-family dwellings and duplexes. (7. 010) City of Everett, WA.

▪ Allow for small-lot, single-family dwellings in specific zones. (22. 28. 042) City of Kirkland, WA.

▪ Create minimum required density and minimum average lot size. (21. 08. 170) City of Redmond, WA.

▪ Create a residential small lot district. (23. 43) City of Seattle, WA.

▪ Rezone 99% of single-family lots to allow higher density duplexes. City of Vancouver, B. C.

▪ Eliminate all single-family home zoning to allow ADUs, cottage houses, duplexes and triplexes in neighborhoods city-wide. City of Minneapolis, MN.

▪ Regulate “lot occupancy" ― how much space must be left unbuilt and reserved for yards ― or minimum size of lots.

▪ Relax height restrictions to allow for building more floors.

▪ Reduce minimum property size requirements to allow properties to be sub-divided.

▪ Disallow construction of single-family homes on large lots. Increase densities in single-family zones, such as with tiny homes, duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes.

102

Stormwater Management Communities across the country face the challenge of balancing water quality while accommodating new growth and housing development. Many municipal stormwater regulations require stormwater management only at the site scale, using pipes, basins, curbs and gutters. Although this approach has helped to keep local flooding at bay, this practice can degrade waterways and create poor watershed-scale water quality. A threat of natural land disruption and increased stormwater runoff is a primary consideration for public works staff. Anonymous image People are drawn to nature and vegetation. Storm water management for multifamily housing can be implemented creatively, doubling as attractively landscaped parks and enticing open space areas. Such camouflaged drainage not only beautifies communities; it diffuses, absorbs and slows down rainwater to prevent pollution of streams and rivers. The natural appeal of creative vegetation-covered landscapes helps to promote community acceptance of affordable housing. One study claims the economic benefits of park or park-like settings are based on two primary factors: distance from the open space and the quality of the open space. The study concludes that excellent quality open space can add up to 15% to the value of a proximate dwelling, while problematic open space can actually reduce home value by up to 5%.51

A new trend in responding to increased housing is the expanding use of Low Impact Development (LID) to help protect and restore water quality. By employing strategic stormwater conservation designs, preserving open space and reducing the amount of impervious ― or impenetrable ― surfaces, undesired run-off can be minimized. Developers can use these designs to preserve important on-site features, such as wetland and riparian areas, forested tracts, and land with porous soils. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) summarized 17 case studies, and concluded that employing LID methods resulted in total capital cost savings of 15 to 80%.

One consideration for Monroe’s future developments is to preserve natural areas and not to clear or grade entire sites for housing lots, resulting in less cumulative run-off generated from land development parcels. This may even reduce the need for large run-off controls, such as retention ponds, ultimately decreasing overall infrastructure costs.

Other stormwater mainstays are well-designed infiltration practices ― engineered structures or landscape features designed to capture and infiltrate water run-off and recharge groundwater. Similarly, healthy runoff conveyance practices are vital to route excess runoff through and off sites. LID design can be used to slow flow velocities, lengthen run-off times of concentration, and delay peak flows discharged off-site. So, while enhanced building activity can increase the potential for flooding, multi-

51 Trust for Public Land (TPL)

103

functional landscapes such as rain gardens, and various conservation designs and practices can reduce both water run-off and the city’s water bill by ultimately lowering stormwater management fees.

Monroe’s Director of Public Works shared that developers in the city typically cover vaults with parking areas or landscaping to increase the development’s appeal.

Images, courtesy of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Revise drainage codes with a network of swales, ponds, and open spaces throughout 34 blocks of Right-of-Way. The city developed their High Point Affordable Housing Community with the goal of stormwater filtration at the block scale in compliance with their drainage covenant. It maintained standard curbs and gutters to keep the traditional feel, with garden walks to encourage a walkable neighborhood. This drainage plan created multifunctional uses such as a new pond, pocket parks and playgrounds, while also serving as underground water storage. City of Seattle, WA.

▪ Mandate, where necessary, pervious sidewalks and parking lots. Instead of using expensive infrastructure pipes and drains to move stormwater, invest in pervious structures. Hopewell Township, PA.

▪ Consider raised center medians for access management. Edmonds Highway 99 Subarea Plan

▪ Mandate development plans which preserve natural areas by outlining the smallest site disturbances. This minimizes the stripping of topsoil and compacting of subsoil that results from grading and use of equipment. EPA

104

▪ Offer zoning upgrades, expedited permitting, fee discounts, reduced stormwater requirements, and/or other incentives for development proposals that include green infrastructure practices. EPA

▪ Review and change, as necessary, building and zoning codes to ensure that green infrastructure is legal. For example, remove restrictions on downspout disconnection and stormwater re-use.

▪ Develop or revise stormwater utility bills to also include a fee based on impervious services in order to address combined sewer overflows.

▪ Require all vaults have dual-use ― being covered with landscape, used as retention ponds, or subsurface for parking ― and levied to be flood-proof.

Streets

Since the 1920s, a national trend has been to permit developers to make layout and connectivity decisions for streets in their subdivisions and commercial sites. This has in turn affected emergency response times, access to existing businesses, and walkability in communities. At the same time, conventional project-by-project street design has resulted in poorly-connected networks of many oversized streets. Less street space could maximize land, reduce storm water runoff, and add value to abutting properties and neighborhoods.

As the City of Monroe explores new multifamily housing development on undeveloped and/or potentially annexed lands, consideration of new street design approaches may be beneficial.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Prohibit developers from making layout and connectivity decisions for streets in their subdivisions and commercial sites.

▪ Change land development codes and subdivision ordinances to require minimum connectivity in new development and redevelopment.

105

▪ Create clear policies for location, frequency and design of safe, well-designed street crossings. A critical link in any walking network is the availability of safe and appropriately spaced street crossings, especially at arterial streets.

▪ Establish standards for maximum block length, circumference of block area, minimum intersections per linear mile of roadway or square mile of area, and establish the number of street links by the number of intersections (Connectivity Index).

▪ Update local street design standards to include city branding for pedestrian curb ramps, crosswalks and curb extensions.

▪ Update design standards for street tree provisions to increase the city’s street canopy and appeal, for new and renovated streets. Consider root-to-surface ratios, species and foliage drop-rate, potential shade canopy and heat tolerance from streets and sidewalks.

▪ Provide policy for bike lane provision on arterials and collectors for new and renovated streets.

▪ Add street design principles to the Comprehensive Plan.

▪ Create “multimodal corridor” designations to guide prioritization of projects in capital improvements programs.

▪ Revise street design standards to add “narrow local streets” subcategories. Create design templates for residential and commercial streets that are narrower than currently permitted.

▪ Add alley templates to local street design standards.

Many of these suggestions were provided, courtesy of the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s report, “Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes”.

106

Tax Incentives

As housing developers face mounting taxes and Terms development costs, tax incentives offer an economic relief and motivation to invest in communities. This Tax abatement - A reduction section lists potential tax incentives for the city to consider. of taxes granted by a government to encourage economic development. Special Taxing Districts Property Tax Deferral - The benefit of special taxing districts is that taxation is required annually, the Stops collection efforts on same amount as an impact fee, but spread out over a period of five years. The property taxes owed on a extended payment time allows the city to better prepare for growth. residence for a set period of

time. The deferred tax * The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or is viewed as a loan, and as approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the such, a lien is attached to author. See page 15 for color key. the property. Before the owner can transfer the title ▪ Create special taxing districts, so residents can receive direct benefit, levied on of the property, the deferred annual basis, not tied to home value. Don’t solely put fee on new residences. tax plus any interest must be MBA paid off by the owner.

Equity - Equity is the Split-Rate Taxes difference between the assessed value of the Also known as two-tiered property tax reform, this tax separates property taxes property and any debts into a lower tax rate for buildings and a higher tax rate for land. The goal is to secured by the property. encourage improvement and renovation of buildings while disincentivizing land speculation and building vacancy. This tax provides an incentive for developers to release and utilize their vacant properties for affordable housing. It also inspires property owners and low- to middle-income homeowners to improve their properties without the risk of a comprehensive tax increase.

For example, the City of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania reported a decrease in vacant structures from 4,200 in 1982 to less than 500 in the late 1990’s.52 Some credit Pittsburgh’s extensive downtown development to the split-rate tax, even as its predominant steel industry declined.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

52 Hartzok 1997

107

▪ Maintain a neutral tax base and gradually introduce the two tax rates over time. (Hartzock 1997)

▪ Mandate or offer split-rate taxes for developments in specified districts.

Tax Abatements Property tax abatements, or tax reductions, can ease a developer’s financial burden during the costly development phase. To attract higher-value properties, cities will often offer temporary property tax abatements as incentives to encourage developers and investors to build affordable housing in their communities.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Provide property tax abatements to properties in which units will be exclusively available to eligible low-income individuals or to vacant land intended for low-income housing development. State of Oregon, 1985

▪ Offer a real estate tax abatement for up to 30 months during the construction of residential housing. City of Philadelphia, PA.

▪ Require an annual review process to determine whether the participating developments have generated revenue anticipated from such tax abatements.

▪ Create a property tax abatement for infill locations.

Tax Increment Financing (TIF) See (link) to explore Washington’s version of TIF programs: Ch. 39.89 RCW - Community Revitalization Financing (CRF) Ch. 39.102 RCW - Local Infrastructure Financing Tool Program (LIFT)

Over the past two decades, one tool for achieving economic goals has been Tax Increment Financing (TIF). Although TIF is constitutional in most states, the State of Washington has not yet legislated TIF. The following information is presented as a resource, in case legislation is enacted in the future.

108

Similar to the split-rate tax, TIF does not directly create new affordable housing, but subsidizes companies by refunding or diverting a portion of their taxes to help finance development in an area or on a project site. TIF may allow municipal leaders more say in which developments are built and what kinds of companies move into their cities.53

In most states, TIF can only be used in blighted or distressed neighborhoods and can fund developments from convention centers to affordable housing. TIF revenues are commonly requested by hotel developers seeking to build new TIF-funded convention centers, or upper-end hotels to host high- yielding conventions. Most TIF periods last 20 to 30 years. Once TIF periods end, all tax revenues will again be collected by cities. If the TIF is working as intended, property values will potentially increase over that period, due to infrastructure upgrades, as property owners are investing tax dollars in renovations.

TIFs often help to pay for infrastructure improvements (streets, sewers, parking lots) in areas near new development. In some states, TIF can also be used for acquiring land (including eminent domain), paying for planning expenses (legal fees, studies, engineering, etc.), demolishing and renovating buildings, decontamination, or for funding job training programs. Some states allow TIF to directly subsidize private development expenses. There is no surety in knowing whether a project will successfully generate the anticipated tax increases or enhanced property values.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Encourage state legislators to pass TIF legislation, enabling the implementation of TIFs in municipalities.

▪ Create TIF districts. Citylab.com

▪ Recommend requiring TIF policies to account for inflation rather than freezing tax revenues for 20 to 30 years, which may decrease the real values of that money by up to 20% per year. Citylab.com

▪ Dedicate TIFs to fund Transit Swift lines into the city, when demand permits. Citylab.com

▪ Encourage TIF Funding to renovate buildings which can enhance the community. Citylab.com

▪ Closely monitor TIF funding to maintain qualifying TIF districts and monitor the money in an Affordable Housing Fund, separate from the General Fund, for accountability. Citylab.com

▪ Do or do not require a “blighted” designation for TIF districts. Citylab.com

53 Citylab.org

109

Miscellaneous Tax Incentives Additional tax incentives the city could consider are addressed below.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Implement Tax Incremental Transfers. This practice shares tax revenues from new developments with existing residents through rebates in their property taxes. State of Florida 2017

▪ Implement exemptions from the requirement to pay fire, park, and school impact fees for low- and moderate-income housing and for ADUs. (3. 10. 060, 3. 10. 070. 221) City of Redmond, WA.

▪ Adopt a city-wide 15-year, 100% residential property tax abatement. This bridges the gap between the cost of new housing construction and the sale price of homes. The tax abatement goes into effect once the project is completed. If property is sold during the 15-year abatement period, the new owner receives the abatement benefit. All new housing construction and rehabilitation must meet the city’s zoning requirements and must be properly maintained per city standards. The housing portion of any mixed-use project is also eligible for tax abatement. City of Akron, OH.

▪ Offer a tax abatement on real estate or other taxes for up to 12 months during the construction of affordable and market-rate residential housing.

▪ Provide LIHTC and other tax credits only for rental housing with two- and three-bedrooms.

▪ Establish a city growth fund: Set a property tax on new construction, setting aside 10% for affordable housing construction.

▪ Create a tax incentive similar to Opportunity Zones. Investors can defer tax on any prior gains invested in a Qualified Opportunity Fund (QOF) until the date which the investment in a QOF is either sold or exchanged (whichever is earliest).

▪ Generate redevelopment through naming rights and advertising.

▪ Implement a land value tax. ▪ Create a code that defers or waives capital gains taxes. ▪ Consider implementing the Chemical Dependency Mental Health Sales Tax (CDMH). This allows a 1/10th of 1% of sales-tax in Snohomish County. $750,000 of this fund is set aside for the development of affordable housing for individuals with chemical dependency or mental health disorders. This fund is administered through Snohomish County’s Office of Housing and Community Development.

110

Tiny Houses

See Appendix IV Examples of “Tiny Home” Design Styles. With the average home price in Monroe costing $500,000, it’s easy to see how a typical $60,000, 100-500 square-foot tiny house (aka “tiny home”) is a cost-efficient housing option. Recent legislation authorizing tiny house communities allows these homes to be used as permanent housing with permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation built in accordance with the state building code. It also allows conditions for temporary use.

There are two types of tiny homes: on wheels (considered a recreational vehicle/RV, often placed in mobile home communities) and those on permanent foundations (considered ADUs), which require more regulation. Recently passed legislation, ESSB 5383, allows prefabricated tiny homes and the use of a binding site plan to create tiny house communities, and gives authority to cities to regulate their creation. Tiny homes can be used as permanent residences in mobile home communities, among other things. HB 2085 passed in 2018, authorizing cities to eliminate minimum gross floor area requirements for single-family dwellings ─ something to consider, if the city desires to designate tiny homes as single- family dwellings.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Allow for construction of ADUs, from tiny house communities—in which a collection of tiny homes surround a larger structure—to a tiny house hotel. City of Portland, Oregon

▪ Create two zoning districts for tiny houses: a Redevelopment Mixed-Use district (RMU) and a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Also add definitions to distinguish tiny houses and tiny houses on wheels. City of Rockledge, FL

▪ Allow tiny houses on wheels as "caregiver dwellings" in the backyard of a person who needs assistance. Cities of Alameda, Contra Costa Lake, Mendocino, Napa, Sacramento and Sonoma, CA.

▪ Subject tiny houses (on foundations) to design review if located in a design review district, as is the case with any single-family residence. (18. 100) City of Olympia, WA. (similar ordinances for stand-alone tiny homes were enacted in the Cities of Lacy, Tumwater, and Vancouver)

▪ Clarify “group of tiny homes” permitted as a co-housing development. City of Olympia, WA.

▪ Allow a tiny house to be used as an ADU. City of Fresno, CA.

▪ In accordance with ESSB 5383, authorize tiny house communities, allowing the use of binding site plans for tiny houses and tiny houses with wheels.

111

▪ Adopt an ordinance to regulate the siting of tiny house communities. ▪ Recognize tiny homes without wheels as permanent dwelling units.

▪ Allow prefabricated tiny homes to be built over surface car parking lots.

▪ Create steel-framed modular constructed tiny homes and cottage units that are designed for eventual relocation and can be reconfigured as a permanent affordable asset which can be moved from one underutilized site to another as development occurs. These 160- to 240-square-foot homes cost around $30,000. The modular units also reduce site development costs. 54

▪ Require a shared infrastructure where one or more tiny homes are built on the same lot.

▪ Approve tiny houses on wheels as backyard cottages.

▪ Allow various sizes in a tiny home cooperative or cottage housing to accommodate households of different sizes.

▪ Allow no age restrictions, in order to embrace senior citizens.

▪ Incorporate tiny homes lot size requirements under ADU code.

▪ Require tiny houses to contain at least one internal toilet and shower or that the mobile home or tiny home community provide such shared amenities.

▪ Form stakeholder advisory committees and encourage community engagement.

▪ Identify existing barriers to tiny houses in code (i.e., minimum size requirements).

▪ Amend the local building code to incorporate new standards for tiny houses.

54 Compass Crossing, Seattle

112

City of Eugene, Oregon’s Story: Emerald Village Eugene (EVE) Tiny- Home Community A creative tiny-house community in Eugene, Oregon called Emerald Village is paving the way for a new way of developing dignified low-income housing. SquareOne Villages, a Eugene nonprofit, starting developing Emerald Village Eugene (EVE) in 2015 and its first residents moved in during 2017. SquareOne received one public grant for the development of this project and it was otherwise completely funded by local philanthropists, donors and in-kind gifts.

EVE is a 22 unit, tiny-home community built on R2 property owned by SquareOne Villages and leased to the Housing Co-op, of which each resident owns a “share.” The residents do not own their homes. This assures perpetual affordability of the community. Applicants whose gross income is under 60% of the AMI may apply and members are selected by lottery. There are three unit sizes to accommodate one to two people. Different configurations accommodate single people, couples or a parent with a child. There are no age restrictions, in order to embrace qualified senior citizens. Designed as permanent dwellings in a cooperative-living environment, each tiny home measures 160 to 288 square feet, complete with sleeping and living areas, kitchenette and bathroom.

Homes are supported by a community clubhouse with a gathering area, communal kitchen, laundry, restroom, and storage of common resources like tools and appliances. Estimated cost per tiny home: $30,000 to $45,000. Residents pay $250 to $350 each month (depending on the size of unit) to the co-operative to cover utilities, insurance, maintenance, long-term reserves, and other operating costs, and are required to volunteer 10 hours of service to the co-op each month. For the first 30 months, $50 of this “rent” is deposited in an “ownership equity fund” to create an asset of up to $1,500 for the resident, if/when they choose to leave. Residents of this housing co-operative will thus have a share of ownership in the community. SquareOne Villages retains ownership of property to assure continued affordability into the future.

Both Images courtesy of Emerald Village, Eugene, Oregon

113

Townhomes Young families are increasingly turning to townhomes to acquire their own property. Townhomes are land-efficient, attached single-family units which usually share one or more wall. Individual townhomes can have a small private yard or share common spaces. Not only is the allowance of townhomes in single-family zones a way to provide more varied and affordable housing options, but townhomes are actually a well-established and frequently used way to increase the density and diversity of housing.55

In the past year, town homes have been outpacing single-family homes in sales at a rate of 3:2.56 Although generally the same cost of single-family homes, townhomes substantially increase a city’s tax revenues per acre, offering 15-25 units/acre (R15-25) vs. the typical 7-10 units/acre (R7-10) for single- family homes. This optimizes land use, significantly increases the tax base, and substantially reduces needed infrastructure.

The City of Monroe defines townhomes as, “a building containing a group of three or more attached dwelling units in which each unit extends from foundation to roof and with open space on at least two sides.” The administration is open to considering additional regulations.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Remove limitation of four units or less per structure. City of Olympia, WA.

▪ Mandate a side yard setback of five feet, regardless of number of units per structure. City of Olympia, WA.

▪ Require one off-street parking space per unit; 1. 5 if on-street paved parking is not available along the street frontage. City of Olympia, WA.

55 Puget Sound Regional Council (PRSC) 56 Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties

114

Urban Growth Area Annexations

See (link) for MRSC’s Helpful Annexation Study Guidelines * The green areas in the image to the right, within the UGA (magenta boundaries) are unincorporated lands within Snohomish County Jurisdiction.

As cities run out of vacant or usable land, municipalities commonly annex unincorporated properties to expand their tax base and provide opportunities for economic and affordable housing investment. Unincorporated lands tend to be sprawled ― or spread out ― in nature, Courtesy GIS Maps of Snohomish have larger land parcels, and are often situated further from retail and County district services. This sprawled development tends to demand high infrastructure costs and impose increased transportation fees on communities. Providing walkable neighborhoods along transit and utility corridors could serve to lessen this sprawl by extending and unifying newly-incorporated lands with city neighborhoods.

To maximize potential land use, careful annexation studies, estimate of revenues, and service requirement costs could be made in advance. Some annexed properties can be deprived of easy access to district services, such as police protection, fire protection, water service, sewage

“If a house is cheap enough to buy and run, but located far from livelihood opportunities or amenities such as schools, it cannot be said to be affordable.” The World Economic Forum

collection and disposal, garbage disposal, street maintenance, street lighting, storm sewers, animal control, planning, building inspection, public health protection, recreation, and library services. Due to geographical distance from the city’s core, residents may feel isolated from the downtown commercial populations. Ensuring these concerns are addressed and that public transportation is accessible could serve to reduce or prevent the typically higher home foreclosure rates in these areas. An informative public education campaign addressing owners of properties considered for annexation could greatly distill concerns about the annexation process. See the link at the top of this section and the Public Education section in this paper for specific public education approaches.

At the time of this writing, the City of Monroe is considering annexing two properties from the designated Urban Growth Area: the Monroe Woodlands and the Monroe Highlands, for R4 Single-Family Home zoning, with no minimum lot size. The total combined acreage for these two properties is 139.5 acres. Outside of these properties, there are 28.6 other acres of unincorporated land remaining for potential annexation.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Require annexations to include affordable housing. PLAN-Boulder County, Boulder, CO.

115

▪ Refer to the MRSC annexation guidelines in above embedded link.

▪ Enact a Public Facility Ordinance (PFO). This helps to ensure that infrastructure of schools, roads, sewers and fire protection is available to accommodate new development.

▪ Establish a policy which sets criteria for annexation, including provision of utilities, minimum development thresholds, and infrastructure financing, along with requirements for developing an annexation plan for any area in the City.

▪ Create urban service areas or boundaries as part of the overall Master Facilities Plan in order to phase development with infrastructure.

Waivers or Reduction of Fees or Standards A common practice to invite developers into cities seeking affordable housing is to waive or reduce building or planning fees, linkage, sewer, and water connections fees. This olive branch incentivizes developers to invest those savings into additional dwelling units or other amenities. Another option for cities to help alleviate the extensive initial start-up costs of the building phase is to offer deferred fee payments.

The City of Monroe already offers significant discounts or waivers of impact fees for affordable housing developments, as well as a Downtown fee waiver.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Offer waiver of planning fees. (16.72.070) City of Everett, WA.

▪ Include dimensional standards modification as well as reduced fees for road and/or park impact, and reduced fees for eligible planning, building, plumbing, mechanical and electrical permits. (112.204) City of Kirkland, WA.

▪ Reduce fees for land use and building permits. (18A.50.760) City of Lakewood, WA.

▪ Offer system-development charge deferrals. (13.03.110) City of Port Townsend, WA. ▪ Offer deferred payments of fees, not requiring payment until completion of the project.

116

Zoning

Over the years, standard zoning has produced communities which are divided and separate from each other, isolated by use and residential income levels. Zones for apartments, small and large houses, commercial, industry and offices are each designated in their own sectors. And to City of Monroe Official Zoning Map May, 2019 move among traditional zoning districts , people must drive, increasing congestion and hampering easy access to goods, services – and relationships. Unfortunately, the unexpected consequence results in urban sprawl. Places to gather socially disappear and populations are divided by income.

In addition, the growing number of zoning regulations on urban land use has deterred construction, consequently reducing the supply of housing across all income brackets. Over-regulation has been the cause of declining economic growth Terms by 50% and decline of economic output by 8.9% between 1964 and 2009.57

Zoning Ordinances - These regulations specify Elected officials are realizing the benefits of abandoning some of these traditional whether zones can be zoning mindsets. Today, cities are seeking to unite communities and desegregate used for residential, lower-income households through mixed-use and mixed-income developments. commercial, or other They are also reconsidering land use regulations to make them more purposes, and may also accommodating. Allowing more flexible zoning and zoning overlays adds another regulate lot size, dimension to affordable housing development. placement, bulk (or density) and the height of The City of Monroe has an opportunity to focus new affordable and market-rate structures. multifamily housing construction in the following zoning districts: Downtown Commercial (DC), Mixed-Use (MU), Multifamily housing with maximum of 25 Upzoning - apartment units per acre (R25), and Single-Family Homes with maximum of 15 The process of changing units/houses per acre (R15). zoning to allow for higher value. For example, a city could increase allowable floor-to-area ratios from industrial to residential.

57 The CATO Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based libertarian think tank

117

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Provide guidelines for mixed-use planned unit developments and offer these projects flexible design standards in exchange for features such as increased density. (15.08.400) City of Kent, WA.

▪ Require the city set aside at least 10% of total housing units as affordable. 1969 Massachusetts Comprehensive Permit and Zoning Appeal Law

▪ Allow subdivisions and short subdivisions and require minimum densities in many residential zones. (20.06. 101-230, 21.12.030) City of Woodinville, WA.

▪ Adopt One-for-One replacement codes, allowing developments currently featuring more units than allowed through current zoning, to be rebuilt to include up to the existing unit count, with a requirement for increased permanent affordable housing. PLAN-boulder County, Boulder, CO.

▪ Allow duplexes and triplexes city-wide. City of Minneapolis, MN

▪ Up-zone single-family neighborhoods. City of Seattle, WA.

▪ Legalize up to four homes on all urban land zoned for single-family homes. State of Oregon

▪ Reduce quantity of zoning areas. Reduced Comprehensive Plan map and reduced zoning from 32 to six zones. City of Everett, WA.

▪ Create a Historic Overlay Zoning District to preserve the surviving historic character of a city while encouraging new investment in these properties, which reinforces the scale, distinguishing features, and appearance of historic buildings. (4.2.1) City of Silver City, NM.

▪ Use wetlands to farm seasonally housed workers. Chelan Affordable Housing Report ▪ Do not require a formal subdivision for projects of fewer than 10 lots. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) gives local governments the option to allow some minor construction projects to be exempt from SEPA review, depending on their size and scale. This includes short subdivisions, or projects which contain four or fewer lots- although local jurisdictions have the option to go up to nine lots in urban growth areas. Despite this authority, many cities in the Puget Sound region still require a formal subdivision for projects of fewer than 10 lots. This can cost months of time and tens of thousands of dollars for small developments between five and nine lots, which are becoming more commonplace as land capacity has dwindled. Erich Armbruster, 2018 President of the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties

118

▪ Create affordable districts or overlay zones. National Association of Home Builders (NAHB)

▪ Allow flexibility in subdivision requirements. National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB)

▪ Address the prevalent NIMBY concern that affordable multifamily housing next to homes will negatively affect their property values. Request the Snohomish County Assessors compare property values of homes in communities before and after affordable housing was established in these areas and present findings. *If local property values are proven to be negatively impacted, explore potential zoning exemptions to help preserve market rates for surrounding single-family homes.

▪ Designate agriculture interim/holding zones in lieu of low-density zoning in areas where the local government would rather not see imminent development. US Environmental Protection Agency

▪ Reform zoning ordinances and design manuals to allow for a greater variety of housing types.

▪ Increase the short subdivisions of four lots to nine within the Urban Growth Area (RCW 58.17.020 (6)). Increasing the number of lots allowed in a short plat can help streamline the permit process.

▪ Relax height and other zoning restrictions to expand housing supply.

▪ Up-zone for additional density. The District of Washington, D. C. up-zoned land adjacent to Union Station, the city’s major multi-modal transit hub, and created a new, 358-acre mixed-use neighborhood, called NoMa. By 2012, NoMa was contribution $49 million more annually in property taxes than in 2006 levels. In this example, the city did not use capital resources to invest in infrastructure upgrades in the neighborhood; instead, it incentivized landowners and developers to do so. As a result, the private sector was highly motivated to capture gains made possible by the increase in allowable density. NoMa’s success is tied to its unparalleled proximity to the city’s major multimodal transit hub, an upswing in market conditions, and a growing trend of residents seeking to live near their workplace.

▪ Require, rather than incentivize, specific design features (for instance, a civic space whose size is tied to the size of the development) through other regulatory mechanisms, such as a city retaining preapproval rights of open space design. ttps://urban-regeneration.worldbank.org/node/21

▪ Allow duplexes on all corner lots, provided they share a similar design style as surrounding houses. MBA

119

▪ Allow multifamily housing such as duplexes, triplexes and courtyard apartments in single-family housing zones, confined to low-rise height requirements. MBA

▪ Designate Prefered Growth Areas where growth will occur, then rezone, change codes, and alter utility and needed infrastruture provisions to accommodate the growth.

▪ Identify and tally various dwelling styles (ADUs, duplexes, This map of Santa Clara, CA. illustrates triplexes, fourplexes, tiny homes, condos, townhomes, single- designated preferred growth areas to keep distinctive places intact. family and multifamily homes, and affordable housing) and update every five years to track housing goals and compare generated revenue.

▪ Establish utility and transportation capacity plans.

▪ Allow deferral of Monroe’s already reduced impact fees (RCW 82. 02. 050 (3) to first 20 units, to be paid back one year from completion of construction, with interest.

▪ Allow multifamily occupancy across all neighborhoods, including laneway homes, secondary suites, duplexes and row houses.

▪ Rezone churches and designate co-operative housing zones.

▪ Set minimum densities for developable land at 8 units per acre zoned for single-family homes, 12 units-per-acre zoned for duplexes and triplexes, and 20 units-per-acre zoned for multifamily housing. Housing projects with 12 or more units in a designated Smart Growth District must make at least 20% of the units affordable at 80% AMI and below. Employ condominium and cooperative ownership structures.

▪ Allow smaller parcel sizes and subdivisions.

▪ Allow or disallow third stories of single-family homes as ADUs. This falls under the 35’ single- family home zoning restrictions.

120

The City of Bothell’s Story The city hired a San Francisco consultant and publicized a call-to-action for citizens to serve on a stakeholder committee. The committee had 16 stakeholders and citizens to work with planners to develop the plan. Other citizens attended city hearings. They voted to increase height and setbacks to protect surrounding single-family homes and developed a form-based code to address design standards (more flexible in various zones). Prior zoning allowed for pedestrian-oriented retail in broader areas, resulting in sprawled retail.

The city refocused on the old Highway 527 multi-way boulevard and transformed it in to a walkable and bustling downtown core. Now that the DC was built up, there was more flexibility. Flexible zoning allowed MU developments to provide ground-floor retail in required zones, while in other zones, live- work spaces were created at the ground floor. Other spaces have converted to commercial. Ground floor retail must have 13-14-foot ceiling heights to accommodate future retail.

A challenge was getting proposals for use of ground floor retail space by marginal “retail” businesses, such as doctors. Specific codes were written to ensure a viable future for retail space. Minimum floor area ratios and ceiling heights were established for retail spaces. Single story commercial spaces were required on Main Street and the Highway 527 boulevard. The city focused on auto-oriented retail, such as Speedy Auto, along the corridor, while joining the DC and corridor areas with a connection trail and sidewalk. The city limited the DC neighborhood district to five stories and transitional to three stories. General Downtown Corridor and Highway 527 corridors had heights of three to four stories, while most above units are studios and one-bedroom apartments.

There was much push-back from surrounding owners of single-family homes to the city’s Neo- Traditional planning approach. The city responded by reducing proposed heights from descending floors of five-story to four-story, and three-story levels. The city maintained its previous code of 35-foot height limits for transitional districts (Commercial and Residential), mostly for multifamily housing. The city offered no bonus densities. The municipality owns some development parcels, and is considering allowing extra stories for affordable housing.

As for parking, new code requires 2.2 spaces for every unit and 1 space for every five spaces of guest parking. The first developer of MU housing pushed for and was granted reduced parking for adhering to green building standards. The developer employed the minimal amount of parking and was granted credit for required street parking as a reward for building sidewalks. The city has also charged for the use of parking spaces. When residents realized their municipality had no funding to enforce this, the streets filled up with parking on core streets and the library. The city has since further modified their parking code with an interim code: one parking space per studio unit; 1.5 parking spaces per two- bedroom units, and 2. 2 spaces for two-bedrooms and above.

Sidewalk codes were modified from five feet to now eight-foot-wide sidewalks, with trees and grades in the DC zone, and have been expanded to six-foot-wide sidewalks in the Residential zone. Public frontage standards require developers to build new sidewalks connected to public open space. Vaults can be covered with landscape, and must be on-site detention vaults, levied to be flood-proof. Developers pay fees for inputted infrastructure, which they can tap into from the Sammamish River for their stormwater system.

121

Chapter 2

INNOVATIVE APPROACHES

122

Innovative Approaches Showcased below are creative strategies cities have used to address affordable housing in their communities:

Create Dual Stakeholders by Donating Private Land to Cities A for-profit gave a local government a half-share in an affordable housing development, which cemented community acceptance and a city stake in the project’s outcome.

Invest HB 1406’s Sales Tax Revenue These funds derived from state sales tax revenues could be contributed by the city, as a potential member of the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA) local trust fund, with the intent that eventually the city would receive affordable housing project funding from this multi-city cooperative. Another option is to partner with a local nonprofit organization to funnel these moneys into either affordable housing or a local emergency “wrap around” transition shelter. For more information, see Appendix III, Funding Sources Explained.

Enhance Geographic Information System (GIS) Services GIS services can be instrumental in equipping cities to identify affordable housing needs through geographic/geospatial data, aerial views, interactive map applications, data analysis, and web services. Urban planners are GIS, Newberg, Oregon turning to GIS to visualize how HUD ventures affect neighborhood stability, to assess current educational and employment opportunities, and to build low-income housing with improved access to such places as medical clinics, supermarkets, public transportation, and job-training facilities. More than just a map, GIS could provide layers of information about local geography, roads, building sites, socio-economic conditions, and more. GIS can give planners and prospective developers answers to questions such as what environmental hazards are nearby and which commuting options are best for residents.

During the writing of this paper, FLO Analytics generously donated analysis time to build a GIS layer, which the City of Monroe deployed into their Enterprise GIS System (developed through the Association of Washington Cities GIS Consortium) to create an interactive, web-based GIS map of the city’s current

123

affordable housing stock, along with an overlay of Monroe’s current zoning designations (see page 12). The city could consider utilizing this map to identify unused lands, unreported ADUs, properties in disrepair, infill opportunities and future-use options. The Puget Sound Regional Council (PRSC) and the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) GIS Consortium currently work with the city to provide GIS services on several levels.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Create a masters-level college fellowship or internship-for-credit in Urban Planning or GIS technology through Western Washington University, whereby such services can be garnered.

Explore Corporate Funding of Affordable Multifamily Housing Some corporations leverage their wealth by investing in affordable housing development. Microsoft, a Redmond-based global vendor of computer software, pledged $500 million in January 2019 for building affordable housing in Eastside King County, WA. The company will loan $225 million at below-market rates to help developers build multifamily dwellings for Middle Income households. The loan arrangement allows the company to keep re-investing the funds in other projects. Another $250 million is being contributed toward households with 60% and below AMI, and $25 million will be donated to low-income homeless services. A remaining $5 million is reserved to keep tenants from facing eviction. 58

The city is not exploring corporate funding of affordable housing at this time. Microsoft sponsors a carpool lift for the company’s Monroe-based employees.

58 Curbed.com

124

Consider Innovative Construction Affordable housing requires cost-efficient construction to keep rents competitive. And yet, construction costs – labor and materials― usually account for 40 to 60% of the cost of a new multifamily housing complex, depending on the study. High demand for skilled labor lends fire to the high cost of construction, and recent international trade developments have heightened material costs. In turn, developers are exploring new and more cost- efficient construction materials.

PVC Synthetic Wood The new plastic panels, which measure about eight feet long, four feet wide, and one inch thick, are said to be not only durable and impermeable, but affordable, as well. One small plant enables 5.5 tons of plastic waste to be converted from trash to building materials every day. A simple house uses about 80 of these panels and includes roughly two tons of plastic.59 Further research shows concern regarding a low fire-related melting threshold.

Laminated Wood Laminated timber is a relatively new concept, similar to the price of steel. Increased penetrability and lighter weight facilitate construction, saving builders working time and thus money on projects. It also has a lower carbon footprint and is said to have a stronger durability, providing a cost-effective solution to heavier steel for mid-rise levels. Prefabrication can reduce costs with off-site production and on-sight assembly. In Seattle, only one bank is encouraging this relatively new product.

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Reward users of laminated wood with additional height/stories for five floors and above.

▪ Reduce impact or other fees if builder uses mass timber products.

▪ Conduct a 5-year test model to ensure durability and shelf life of new products.

59 Founder Carlos Daniel González

125

Explore Limited Equity Cooperatives (LECs) In this model, member-residents jointly and democratically own and reside in their building, which they secure through a combination of collective purchasing and a low-interest mortgage, often with the assistance of a nonprofit. Households with 30 to 60% AMI purchase shares in a corporation or nonprofit that owns the LEC, and additionally pay monthly fees to cover property taxes and operating costs, which the LEC manages. By purchasing a share, households are given a unit to live in under a lease that protects tenants from unjust eviction and typically lasts 99 years. If a member-resident chooses to leave, they are not permitted to sell the unit for profit; the LEC members collectively determine a cap on resale values to keep units affordable. The resale price cannot exceed the sum of the original cost of the unit plus the cost of any upgrades to the property throughout the time of the first tenancy.

Resell Bulk Purchases of Multifamily Units A nonprofit made a bulk purchase of 120 units in a for-profit developer’s multifamily housing project to resell with some restrictions. The nonprofit got a reduced price on the deal from the bulk purchase and 60 the for-profit developer met its lender’s presale requirements for financing.

Workforce Housing This kind of housing model serves the middle-income population, enabling teachers, nurses and police officers to live where they work. Middle income housing stock keeps cities diversified, vibrant and economically stronger with increased revenues. Teachers Village in Newark, NJ, receives 60/40 private and public funding for a middle-income-tenant based complex. Two hundred rental units brought in more than 20 commercial businesses and a street-level classroom to provide professional development for teachers and after-hours programs for students.61

60 Seattle Challenge 61 Forbes Magazine, “Three Great Initiatives Revolutionizing Affordable Housing in the U.S.”

126

The City of Mill Creek’s Story Mill Creek has transformed from a golf course- and country club-oriented city in the early 1980s to a safe and family-oriented, walkable community with a focus on sports access. It boasts a nature preserve around Penny Creek, 10 neighborhood community parks, more than 23 miles of nature trails along streets and throughout highly vegetated developments. The city is situated among seven colleges within a 17-mile radius, drawing revenue- producing millennials, and yet more than 50% of its housing supply accommodates multifamily housing.

The City of Mill Creek is currently considering approval for a development targeting 100% of the 355 units at 60% of the average median income (AMI) for Snohomish County – the “Working Class” Courtesy City of Mill Creek, proposal for population, comprised of employed The Farm, an affordable housing residents such as teachers and police multifamily project. officers. Farm Developers’ Fiscal Impact Mill Creek Sports Park, est. 2004 Analysis prepared by Integra Realty Resources in March 2019, indicates that the proposed development would generate more than $499,000 in annual ongoing tax revenues (property tax and sales taxes) and more than $980,000 of one-time construction-related taxes.

The city’s leadership was able to eliminate its deficit in just 18 months and have the lowest tax increase in 6 years through sound, long-term planning. The city accrued substantial reserves from a strong construction phase ending in 2003 and is now seeking to create a new revenue source, using tourism. Just recently the city attracted Arena Sports facility, a multiuse complex with an indoor soccer stadium, bowling, laser tag and an inflatable fun zone. The Mill Creek Sports Park, created in 2004, is a highly desirable venue for softball, baseball and soccer and the most popular recreational facility in the city.

The city is now using 10 acres of debt-free land the city purchased 10 years ago, master-planning a recreation zone that can be a driver for a hospitality arm of sports tourism. This is expected to generate a new revenue stream for a city which has a strong youth and adult sports population. With increased tourism, they anticipate more patrons of the town center.

The city boasts attractive mixed-use multifamily developments on its Main Street corridor, ample sidewalks and creative retail and office space. In the same light, the city aims to keep business traffic and density away from residential areas. Focusing on connectivity so people can get from one side of the city to the other via bike trails and sidewalks allows residents and visitors to minimize use of their cars. The city is working on a plan to maintain infrastructure for the next 30 years. Newer developments are being created along 132nd Street SE and 164th Street SE corridors to provide diverse offerings from neighborhood communities such as South Everett and Snohomish.

Miscellaneous: -No bonus densities or incentives -Allows multifamily housing in many different zones. -Situated along Hwy 527 corridor zoned for multifamily housing, Swift Green Line and future Orange Line transit stops.

127

Chapter 3

LEGISLATION

128

Legislation

During the 2018 and 2019 state legislative sessions, lawmakers demonstrated their continued interest in addressing affordable housing. Revenue opportunities, tax deferrals, an opportunity for a city planning grant, legislation addressing tiny homes, condominium reform, short-term rentals, landlord-tenant relationships, and bonus densities for properties owned by religious organizations are all issues addressed in the following legislation.

The City of Monroe implements the following taxes:

•Property •Sales •Use •Utility •Admissions

•Gambling •Leasehold Excise •Hotel/Motel

• Convention Center Taxes

Existing State Laws

Affordable Housing Property Tax (RCW 84.52.105) In 1995, RCW 84. 52. 105 authorized cities, counties and towns to impose an additional regular property tax levy of up to 50 cents per $1,000 of assessed value of property for up to ten consecutive years to finance affordable housing for very low-income households (earning 50% or less of the county’s AMI), when specifically authorized to do so by a taxing district’s majority vote. The city must declare an emergency with respect to the availability of affordable housing. *The City of Monroe could present this tax for a public vote in order to create an emergency shelter with wrap-around services to fund homelessness prevention programs.

An example of a city employing this tax is the City of Bellingham. The city’s voters approved their .36 cent/per $1,000 housing levy (RCW 84.52.105) and generated $21 million over seven years for their Home Fund to provide affordable homes and supportive services to seniors on fixed incomes, the

129

disabled, veterans and low-income families. An administrative and financial plan approved by the Bellingham City Council helps to guide the use of these funds. 62

Affordable Housing Sales Tax (RCW 82. 14. 530) Adopted by the legislature in 2015, this law authorizes counties, cities and towns to place a ballot proposition before the voters for a sales tax up to 0. 1% for affordable housing and related services.

At least 60% of the revenue must be used for constructing affordable housing, constructing mental and behavioral health-related facilities, or funding the operations and maintenance costs of new units of affordable housing and facilities where housing-related programs are provided. The affordable housing and facilities may only be provided to specific populations with income of 60% or less of the county’s AMI. Remaining funds must be used for the operation, delivery, or evaluation of mental and behavioral health treatment programs and services or housing-related services. No more than 10% of the revenue may be used to supplant existing local funds.

Property Tax Deferral for Homeowners with Limited Income (RCW 84.37.030) This law, created in 2007, allows property tax deferral for homeowners with limited income. Under this deferral program, the Washington State Department of Revenue pays the second installment of a qualified owner’s property taxes and/or special assessments, due October 31, on the homeowner’s behalf. The program is not an exemption or a grant. Deferred taxes are taxes that have been postponed. When they no longer own and use the property as their personal residence, they must repay the deferred tax. The deferred amount, plus interest, becomes a lien in favor of the state until the total amount is paid off by the owner. The program is only available to residents and property located in Washington State. Owners must have owned their home for five years before applying for a deferral, and the home must be their primary residence at that time. Eligible homeowners must have been living in the home as of January 1 of the application year, and must live there for more than six months during that year and every subsequent year. The rate of interest for the deferral is based on an average of the federal short-term rate, plus 2%. The household’s annual household disposable income for the previous year must be $57,000 or less.

Eliminate Minimum Gross Floor Area Requirements (RCW 19.27A) This 2018 legislation authorizes cities to eliminate minimum gross floor area requirements for single- family dwellings. This could be considered, if the city desires to define tiny homes or ADUs as single- family dwellings.

62 Bellingham’s City Planner II, Chris Koch

130

New State Laws

AWC HB1406 Sample Resolution Guide.pdf Ordinance of Intent to Implement 1406-Pacifica Law Group.doc SHB 1406 State and Local Sales Tax Revenue Sharing See (link) for implementing SHB 1406 and for SHB 1406 content (link)

This bill creates a sales tax revenue sharing program that allows cities and counties to access a portion of state sales tax revenue to make local investments in affordable housing. Over a 20-year period, the state will share more than $500 million with local governments. The program provides up to 0.0146% in local sales and use tax credited against the state sales tax for housing investments. The tax credit is available in increments of 0.0073%, depending on the imposition of other local taxes and whether a county also takes advantage of the credit. The tax credit is in place for up to 20 years and can be used for acquiring, rehabilitating or constructing affordable housing; operations and maintenance of new affordable or supportive housing facilities; and, for smaller cities, rental assistance. The funding must be spent on projects that serve persons whose income is at or below 60% of AMI. Cities can also issue bonds to finance the authorized projects. There is broad discretion in how these funds can be expended. To acquire this funding source, cities and counties must pass a Resolution of Intent by January 31, 2020 and adopt a tax ordinance by July 27, 2020. The figure below is the calculated revenue the city would receive. Figures are generously provided by the Association of Washington Cities. *Revenues from this tax could be applied to either affordable housing or to the emergency shelter with “wrap-around” services, which the city is considering to address homelessness.

City of Monroe SHB 1406 Revenues Sum of Taxable $616,500,822 Revenue Revenues from $45,005 .0073% Revenues from $90,009 .0146% Courtesy, Washington Association of Cities

*The following are options of model city codes and unreferenced ordinances or approaches offered by associations, research publications or occasionally, the author. See page 15 for color key.

▪ Note that Vancouver qualifies for the maximum 0.0146% because it already has a qualifying local tax. Resolution No. M-4026 (2019) City of Vancouver, WA.

131

▪ Place a ballot proposition before voters for a 0. 1% affordable housing local sales tax under SHB 1406. Include analysis of election timing and costs, concluding it is much less expensive to submit a measure at the November 2019 general election (filing deadline: August 6) than at the February or April special election. (RCW 82. 14. 530) (Resolution 14-19) City of Port Angeles, WA.

▪ Create a city resolution for implementation of this bill. For a sample resolution, see (link).

▪ Consider contributing these revenues as a future member of the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA), with the expectation that cooperative funds could eventually be applied toward affordable housing in Monroe.

▪ Consider funneling these revenues through a partnering nonprofit to be used toward affordable housing or a city homelessness program.

▪ Apply HB 1406 funding to bonds (Section 1, Subsection 9), which also may acquire staff member’s time and skill. It is assumed that the writers of this bill are cognizant of the fact that if cities will get free money, they may want to form inter-local alliances and pool their resources together to avoid additional staff costs. If Washington cities fail to apply for or use these funds, counties will assume the moneys after July 28, 2020.

HB 1923 (link)Residential Planning Grant -- Incentives to Increase Residential Densities in Cities See (link) for grants page and pre-application survey for smaller cities. See this (link) for a list of the 12 measures the bill is proposing.

The centerpiece of the bill is a “menu” of 12 actions cities can take to promote increased density. They include allowing backyard cottages and basement apartments in all single-family zones; allowing duplexes, triplexes and courtyard apartments in single-family zones; allowing at least 50 units of housing per acre in areas near commuter train or light rail stations; and allowing 25 units per acre near high frequency bus stops. In exchange for taking action on two of these menu items, cities will be eligible for a $100,000 planning grant from the state.

The author asked the Washington State Department of Commerce how the city could make itself most eligible for this grant. Their Managing Director of Growth Management Services recommends documenting the magnitude of the housing problem in Monroe in detail, and referencing how many of the 12 measures the bill is proposing are being addressed and to what compliance. (HB 1923, p. 4 line 30). He also advised that the city focus on transit-supported proposals and measures to prevent displacement. Although this legislation originally applied to only cities with populations above 20,000, a revision is allowing unclaimed funding to apply to cities under this population criteria. Applications for cities under 20K population will be available September 3, 2019, and due October 15, 2019. The author has informed staff of these deadlines in the Summer of 2019.

132

ESSB 5383 Authorizing Tiny House Communities (link) The Legislature authorizes tiny house communities throughout the state, directing the state building code council to adopt building code standards for tiny houses. The new law amends the binding site plan provisions in Chapter 58.17 RCW to allow the use of binding site plans for tiny house communities. In addition to tiny houses on permanent foundations, the bill also defines tiny houses on wheels so they do not need to be lumped into the category of a recreational vehicle, which typically cannot be used for permanent dwellings. The new law also gives local governments the option of adopting an ordinance to regulate the siting of tiny house communities.

SB 5334 Condominium Act Reform While SB 5334 is not so much planning related, amendments to the 1989 Condominium Act should significantly change market conditions for condominium development. Condominium construction had slowed to a trickle in many areas throughout the state, due to the prevalence of construction defect lawsuits under the old law.

The new legislation changes the implied warranties associated with condominium development, so there could be fewer lawsuits. It is predicted that condos will soon become more economically viable for developers. See this article from The Columbian for a good overview of how the new law could impact the condominium market.

SB 1377 Density Bonuses for Affordable Housing on Properties Owned by Religious Organizations Under SB 1377, certain cities and all cities and counties planning under the GMA must allow an increased density bonus for affordable housing development (either single-family or multifamily) on property owned or controlled by a religious organization, provided certain conditions are met. The housing must be affordable to households earning less than 80% of the area median income and must remain affordable for at least 50 years—regardless of whether the religious organization continues to own the property.

SHB 1798 Short-Term Housing Law ─ Airbnb’s and Short-Term Vacation Rentals This 2019 legislation requires short-term rental operators, or property owners, to provide customers with their contact information, to comply with carbon monoxide alarms, and to post floor plans and maximum occupancy limits. Uncompliant operators may receive a warning letter from the city or county prosecutor. If an owner continues to not comply after a warning letter is received, he or she is guilty of a Class 2 civil infraction. This law requires these property owners to maintain primary liability insurance for a minimum of one million dollars for the short-term rental unit, independently or through a platform providing insurance coverage. The law also requires guests who book Airbnb listings to pay Washington Combined Sales Tax through their overnight registration.

133

EHB 1219 Use of REET 2 Revenues for Affordable Housing and Homelessness For detailed MRSC explanation, see (link). This 2019 legislation authorizes counties and cities to use certain real estate excise tax (REET 2) revenues for facilities serving the homeless and for affordable housing projects until January 1, 2026. In addition, RCW 82.46.035 authorizes all cities and counties that are planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) to levy a second 0.25% real estate excise tax, known as the "Second Quarter Percent" or "REET 2."

Landlord-Tenant Laws New legislation ─ addressing landlord-tenant relationships, inclusion of permanently disabled tenants, and provisions protecting tenant rights ─ aims to minimize displacement of low-income households from affordable housing.

Washington SB 5600 Extend Requirements for Pay-or-Evict Notices to 14 Days This law makes uniform eviction notices available to landlords written in plain language, including information on civil legal aid resources available to tenants and where to find translated copies of notices.

Washington State Landlord Mitigation Law (RCW 43.31.605) Effective in 2018, this law provides landlords with an incentive and security to work with tenants receiving rental assistance. The program offers up to $1,000 to the landlord in reimbursement for some potentially required move-in upgrades, up to fourteen days’ rent loss and up to $5,000 in qualifying damages caused by a tenant during tenancy. Any landlord that has screened, approved and offered rental housing to any applicant that will be using any form of housing subsidy program is eligible, except properties operated by housing authorities.

Washington State’s Tenancy Preservation Program (2019 Amendments to RCW 59.18.410(3) and 43.31.605(c)) Effective June, 2019, the program provides relief to low-income tenants facing eviction for non-payment of rent. In court-approved cases, the United States Department of Commerce will issue a temporary loan to landlords to preserve tenancy. Tenants have up to 90 days to repay the loan.

134

Source of Income Discrimination Law (link); Prohibits tenant discrimination based on source of income.

Housing and Essential Needs (HEN) Referral Program(link) This legislation provides access to essential needs items and potential rental assistance for low-income individuals who are unable to work for at least 90 days due to a physical and/or mental incapacity and are ineligible for Aged, Blind, or Disabled (ABD) cash assistance. The state recently enacted legislation which expands the Housing and Essential Needs (HEN) program to include people with permanent disabilities. While DSHS/CSD determines eligibility for the referral to the HEN program, actual eligibility for rental assistance and essential needs items is determined by the Department of Commerce through a network of homelessness and homelessness prevention service providers.

Washington State Medical Records Law (link) This legislation gives people with disabilities access to the medical records they need to get Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI).

135

CHAPTER 4

FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES

136

Funding Opportunities *For a detailed explanation of these funding opportunities, see (link) or Appendix III, Funding Sources Explained. The City of Monroe currently lacks funding to support a Grants Manager to research, apply for and monitor most of these funding sources. According to city staff, the only funding the city actively engages in is a Community Development Block Grant geared toward sidewalks for low-income housing areas. The city was not selected by the State of Washington to be included in an Opportunity Zone. Nevertheless, there are several funding opportunities below, which may be worth the extra time needed for application and compliance, or have minimal funding requirements.

*For a more detailed explanation of the following funding programs, see (link) or Appendix III, Funding This Sources Explained.

Federal Funding •United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) ● Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) • Home Investment Partnerships Program • Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8) • Continuum of Care Funds (COC)

• Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) The Snohomish County Housing Affordability Regional Task Force (HART) and other studies state the 4% tax credit is underutilized.

• National Housing Trust Fund (NLIHC)

• USDA Rural Development Funds ▪ USDA 502 Housing Repair Loans • USDA RD Facilities Loan • USDA EMS Grants Program

137

State Funding Washington State government plays an important, but limited, role in affordable and subsidized housing. • Washington State Department of Commerce Housing Trust Fund • Washington’s HOME Program • Affordable Housing Sales Tax • Document Recording Fees • EHB 1219 Use of REET 2 Revenues for Affordable Housing and Homelessness

Local Funding There are various local funding options for the city to consider.

• Housing Trust Funds • Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA) Trust Fund • Snohomish County Affordable Housing Trust Fund • Chemical Dependency Mental Health Sales Tax (CDMH) • Capital budget earmarks for specific projects • Bank Loans • Private Philanthropy

Potential Partnerships • HASCO • Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA)

Currently Active City Memberships Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Association of Washington Cities GIS Consortium (link) Snohomish County Housing Affordability Regional Taskforce (HART)

138

Conclusion

Addressing affordable housing is a complex and multidimensional issue which requires both short- and long-term planning. Considering other cities’ track records with specific ordinances allows leadership to be mindful of the pitfalls of trendy laws ─ and at the same time, to consider proven ordinances as well as new, “out-of-the-box” approaches. Thoughtful application of legislation and incentives will go a long way in maximizing potential funding sources and creating outstanding affordable housing opportunities. Similarly, implementing a persuasive public education campaign may help citizens and developers to embrace low-income housing in this community. As staff and elected officials ponder the next step, keeping all of these factors in mind could make the City of Monroe a more affordable place to live.

Highlights Some unique approaches to consider from this whitepaper:

● Codify ADUs as an affordable housing alternative; specify permissible property and zoning locations, owner conditions and dimensions.

● Encourage and incentivize construction of two-and three-bedroom multifamily units to accommodate Monroe’s average 2.98-person household.

● Create specific performance markers and annual evaluations to track progress of predetermined affordable housing goals.

● Create an expanded tiered list of bonus densities and other incentives to incentivize developers of affordable multifamily housing.

● Offer density bonuses to compact single-family and cottage house developments, in addition to the density bonuses granted to specific high-density developments.

● Address landlord-tenant relationships, such as enforcing Just Cause evictions, legislation financially assisting renters and landlords, and relocation assistance to displaced low-income tenants and apartment renters when units are sold, demolished or substantially rehabilitated.

● Define cottages as detached, single-family dwelling units containing 1,500 square feet of gross floor area and allow in multiple zones and infills.

● Consider cluster/conservation subdivisions at the community’s edge to transition to rural parcels; have denser zoning on the urban side of these developments.

139

● Incentivize builders to construct duplexes on corner lots of single-family developments.

● Promote benefits and services to owners of older homes to preserve this significant housing stock. Introduce incentives, such as deferred property taxes, adding ADUs on premises, home repair and weatherization services.

● Promote RCW 84.37.030, which offers property tax deferrals for homeowners with limited income.

● Consider implementing hybridized form-based codes for the DC zoning district.

● Relax height restrictions and reduce minimum property sizes, enabling properties to be subdivided.

● Explore working with hotels and motels to utilize or privately rent out unused parking lots, and to incentivize mixed-use or apartment conversion, if applicable.

● Consider putting public offices in priority infill locations to improve market conditions for infill development.

● Consider investing HB 1406 sales tax revenues in partnering with a local nonprofit organization or with the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA) to fund future potential affordable housing or homelessness projects, compensating for the lack of city staff to monitor these revenues.

● Apply for the USDA RD Facilities Loan at a competitive 3.375% interest rate for rehabilitation or construction of administrative offices or the Wagner Performing Arts Center, owned by the Monroe School District.

● Consider leasing and not selling remaining city-owned vacant lands.

● Create publicly accessible vacant land and property registries on the city website to enable potential developers to easily identify owner contact information, zoning codes and whether the property is on the market.

● Consider implementing a vacant land tax for properties after a certain number of years in vacant status.

• Create a city monitoring program which prohibits landowners of vacant properties from “hiding” vacant lands through filing exemptions or repeated building permits.

● Consider the lender incentives in this paper to draw developers and businesses. Create a local lender taskforce to implement a unified lender plan and promote incentives.

● Require affordable housing parking plans that mandate only non-assigned parking spaces, to reduce underuse. Eliminate parking requirements in the DC District.

● Consider allowing conversion of strip malls into MU complexes, with appropriate zoning overlays.

● Allow tiny homes and remove minimum gross floor area requirements.

● Codify MFTE exemptions in conjunction with highly utilized negotiable incentives.

● If and when TIF becomes authorized by Washington State, explore creating TIF districts and requiring TIF policies to account for inflation rather than freezing TIF tax revenues for 20 to 30 years, thus preserving the real value of that money over time.

140

● Utilize REET revenues for affordable housing projects until January 1, 2026.

● Create a solid public education campaign, including a frequently presented city or county video, an extensive city dashboard, flyers, charettes, and town meetings. Dispel myths and explore valid community concerns.

● Consider addressing the Millennial population’s desire for cultural amenities and outdoor recreation by working in tandem with cultural and recreational businesses and groups.

● Promote Community Transit’s services and discounted shuttles to low-income multifamily housing units, the Monroe Community Senior Center, the city’s disabled and retirement housing complexes, and along transit corridors.

● Require sidewalks adjacent, as well as in front of, new multifamily complexes to be built and paid for by developers. ● Consider raised-center medians for access development.

● Consider the various tax incentives outlined in this paper.

● Explore Limited Equity Cooperatives (LECs).

● Create an interactive public education plan geared toward citizens of unincorporated areas under consideration for annexation. Address concerns for increased property taxes and access to district services.

● Require mandatory sub-metering in individual apartment units on thermostatic valves, heat cost allocators on radiators, and other utilities to significantly reduce multifamily operational utility costs.

• Require developers to assign a certain percentage, or “set-aside” units within large complexes for the use of residents with disabilities and accommodate a percentage of such units for tenants with sensory disorders.

• Explore opportunities for developers to build multifamily housing complexes on excess school land, in exchange for renovation or building of a new school or other municipal facility.

• Require all affordable housing developments to conduct specific mandatory vetting of tenant applicants to confirm “hidden” tenant income such as pensions, VA benefits, Medicaid, SSI and other income sources.

• Require resident status for at least six months to qualify for affordable housing, and to avoid drawing homeless and cost-burdened people from other cities.

● Codify new legislation in this whitepaper to optimize affordable housing opportunities.

• Conduct a cost-benefit analysis of potential revenues from current legislation, reduced parking requirements, sub-metering of utilities, reduced FARs, lender incentives, etc. The city must have the resources to update cost- benefit analysis frequently to reflect the economy, property values, and cost of construction.

______

141

Appendix

I. Monroe’s Affordable Housing Codes, Condensed Including Full Text for Affordable Housing, Chapter 22.52 (Reviewed and confirmed by Monroe’s Senior Planner)

Impact Fees Provides an 80% reduction of Transportation, Park and School Impact Fees to Low-Income Housing (projects constructed by public housing agencies or private nonprofit housing developments, or low- income residential units, rented or purchased, dedicated and constructed by private developers. (3. 50), (3. 52) and (3. 54)

Public Services and Utilities: Water System Development Charge -100% Waiver of Water System Development Fees ($2,500-$3,500/unit) for transitional housing for homeless persons operated by federal, state, county or municipal agencies or public benefit nonprofit corporations. (13. 04. 026)

-Reduction of water system development charge by 80% for affordable housing in downtown commercial zoning district. (13. 04. 027)

Sewer System Development Charge Provides 100% exemption for homeless transitional shelters. (13. 08. 275) Reduction by 80% for affordable housing downtown commercial zoning district ($130/unit hook up fee per unit). (13. 08. 276)

Senior Citizen and Disabled Discount for Single-Family Residential Housekeeping Unit Charge For senior citizens with very low-income or disabled persons, the charge shall be established by the City Council by periodic resolution. The rate for seniors is restricted to SF residences or other residences with a single water meter per unit primarily occupied by a senior citizen (or citizens) 55 years of age or older having an annual income of 50% or less of AMI. (13. 08. 430)

Senior Citizen Discount for Nonprofit Multifamily Residential Utility Rate For low-income senior citizens, the rate shall be established by periodic resolution of the City Council. (13. 08. 432)

142

Chapter 22. 44 Parking Standards and Design:

Exemption for Downtown Commercial Zoning District All uses in the Downtown Commercial Zoning District shall be exempt from the requirement of this section except residential, the residential portion of the Mixed-use structure, and lodging related uses (i. e. hotel, motel, bed and breakfast). (22. 44. 040)

Computation of Off-Street Parking Spaces The maximum number of parking spaces provided for a specified use or building shall be 1. 5 times the minimum number of spaces set out in Table 22. 44. 050: Off-Street Parking Requirements. Zoning administrator may allow an increase in parking spaces if parking demand assessment demonstrates an additional need for parking beyond the maximum. This requirement is in addition to those established for individual dwelling units in Table 22. 44. 050: Off-Street Parking Requirements. (22. 44. 050)

Subdivision Parking Requirements Single-family attached and detached subdivisions shall provide parking in accordance with Table 22. 44. 050: Off-Street Parking Requirements, and as follows: On-street parking may count toward this requirement if the parking area in the right-of-way was created as a result of the development. Off- street parking may count toward this requirement if the parking area is located within tract associated with the subdivision. The applicant shall provide an on and off-site parking plan at time of application. (22. 44. 090)

Zoning Maps and Districts 22. 14 Downtown Commercial – Commercial district for retail and services uses with some mixed and residential uses. Mixed-use – Commercial, light industrial, institutional land uses and attached residential units. Minimum residential density allowed is 12-25 units per acre Mixed-use Neighborhood- Minimum density is 8, max 16 dwelling units per acre

Density 22. 18. 040 Establishes maximum density in multifamily housing complexes as R25 and maximum building height for attached dwelling units is 45’; detached is 35”. No bonus density codes

143

AFFORDABLE HOUSING Sections: 22.52.010 (complete text)

CHAPTER 22. 52 AFFORDABLE HOUSING Sections:

22. 52. 010 Purpose. 22. 52. 020 Applicability. 22. 52. 030 General Provisions. 22. 52. 040 Incentives. 22. 52. 050 Agreements and Covenant. 22. 52. 010 Purpose.

The purpose of this chapter is to implement the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36. 70A RCW) and the housing and land use goals and policies of the Monroe Comprehensive Plan for all economic segments of the community. This chapter provides incentives to encourage developers to create housing throughout the city that will be affordable to lower income families.

22. 52. 020 Applicability. Affordable housing incentives are available to new and rehabilitated mixed-use, multifamily, and single- family residential developments meeting the definitions of affordable or low-income housing in Chapter 22. 12 MMC, Definitions, and the requirements of this chapter.

22. 52. 030 General Provisions. For the purposes of review and approval of affordable housing units in residential developments, affordable housing shall meet all of the following applicable requirements, in addition to any other requirements imposed by RCW 84. 14 and this chapter. A. Income Restrictions. Income limits referenced by this chapter shall be determined by using the median family income for the Seattle-Bellevue, WA HUD Metro FMR Area, as most recently published by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development under Section 8(f)(3) of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended. The following income categories and limits are established by Table 22. 52. 030(A), Affordable Housing Income Limits, as pursuant to HUD guidelines and RCW 84. 14

B. Table 22. 52. 030(A): Affordable Housing Income Limits Category Income Limit Very Low-Income 50% of median income and below Low-Income 50% to 80% of median income

144

Moderate Income 80% to 95% of median income Unified Development Regulations (UDR) Page 2 Chapter 22. 52: Affordable Housing

5. All affordable units developed under this chapter shall remain affordable for a period of not less than fifty years, or the minimum period required under applicable state law.

C. Affordable Units in Market Rate Developments. All market rate developments that include affordable housing, as defined by MMC Chapter 22. 12, shall comply with the following:

1. Affordable units within market rate developments shall be constructed concurrently with market rate units;

2. The affordable housing units shall generally be intermingled with the market rate dwelling units in the development;

3. The interiors and exteriors of the affordable housing units shall be consistent with and comparable in quality to the market rate dwelling units in the development;

4. The affordable housing units shall consist of a mix of the unit types (by number of bedrooms) and shall be provided in a range of sizes that are generally proportionate to the mix of market rate units in the overall development;

5. The tenure (owner- or renter-occupied) of the affordable housing units shall be the same as the tenure of the market rate dwelling units in the development;

6. The affordable housing units shall be available for occupancy in a time frame comparable to the availability of the market rate dwelling units in the development; and

7. Developers shall build affordable units on the same site as the market rate dwelling units.

D. Developments Exclusively Providing Affordable Housing. In the case of developments constructed solely to provide affordable housing, whether owner-occupied or rental, the development shall provide housing units consistent with similar market rate units in the city.

22. 52. 040 Incentives. The city shall provide a density bonus and additional incentive(s), for qualified housing developments, upon the written request of a developer, and as consistent with this chapter. The development incentives shall contribute significantly to the economic feasibility of providing the affordable units.

A. Density Bonus. The maximum residential density for developments that include affordable housing units shall be determined at the following levels:

1. To calculate the maximum base density, the number of possible dwelling units or lots allowed without the density bonus, refer to the maximum density calculation in MMC 22. 16. 050(B) for single-family developments and MMC 22. 18. 050(B) for multifamily developments.

145

a. Multiply the base density by the density bonus to determine the residential density. This calculation identifies the maximum residential density possible when the affordable housing density bonus is included. In some cases, this density may not be achievable due to unique site considerations, including critical areas, topography, right-of-way dedication, stormwater requirements, etc.

b. When calculating the maximum residential density, any resulting fraction 0. 50 or over shall be rounded up to the next whole number and any fraction 0. 49 or under shall be rounded down to the preceding whole number. c. The ratio of affordable units to additional market rate units are established according to MMC Table 22. 52. 040(A): Affordable Housing Density Bonus for Market Rate Developments. Table 22. 52. 040(A): Affordable Housing Density Bonus for Market Rate Developments Target Household Market Rate Density Bonus Affordable Housing Density Bonus Households at or below very low- 2 additional market rate units/lots Up to a 50% density bonus income per each affordable unit/lot Households at or below low-income 1. 5 additional market rate units/lots Up to a 40% density bonus per each affordable unit/lot Households at or below moderate 1 additional market rate unit/lots Up to a 20% density bonus income per each affordable unit/lot

2. In the case of developments constructed solely to provide affordable housing, whether owner- occupied or rental, the developer shall receive additional affordable housing units or lots above the maximum density otherwise permitted in an amount equal to the density bonus provided for market rate developments.

B. Tax Exemptions. The value of new housing construction, conversion, and rehabilitation improvements for affordable housing multifamily projects may be exempt from ad valorem property taxation for the maximum time specified in RCW 84. 14. 020 to the extent the project complies with Chapter 84. 14 RCW as now or hereafter amended, subject to the following:

1. The project must comply with all applicable design and site planning standards of this Title. 2. Demolition must comply with the building code and all applicable development standards. 3. The community development department shall issue a certificate of affordability following the recording of covenants, as required in MMC 22. 52. 050 and a finding by the zoning administrator or designee that the project meets the criterion of RCW 84. 14. 060, as now or hereafter amended.

4. An applicant for a certificate of affordability may appeal a denial to the Monroe City Council if the appeal is in writing and filed with the zoning administrator within thirty days of the date of denial. The appeal before the City Council shall be based upon the record made before the zoning administrator with the burden of proof on the applicant to show that there was no substantial evidence to support the denial. The decision of the city council shall be final.

5. Applications for certificates of affordability and appeals thereto shall not be subject to MMC Title 22, but rather shall be governed by the procedures imposed by Chapter 84. 14 RCW.

146

C. Modifications. Additional incentives include modifications to development standards in developments that provide affordable units, as outlined in this subsection. The zoning administrator may approve the following modifications to the development standards:

1. The maximum lot coverage may be increased up to an additional ten percent above the maximum standard applicable to the zoning district in which the development is located.

2. On-site parking may be reduced to: a. Two parking stalls per affordable unit in multifamily developments b. Three-quarters of a parking space per affordable unit in affordable senior developments c. A greater administrative modification of the minimum required number of parking spaces may be approved if the applicant provides a parking study, prepared by a qualified professional, substantiating that parking demand can be met with a reduced parking requirement.

3. Modifications to parking design standards may be approved when they can demonstrate that on- site parking needs will be met.

4. In neighborhoods in the Downtown Commercial zoning district that allow for residential uses when a housing development will exclusively provide affordable units, attached affordable housing units may be constructed up to a fourplex, on a single lot, in conformance with Table 22. 52. 040(A): Affordable Housing Density Bonus for Market Rate Developments. The development shall provide housing units consistent with market rate units available to other residents.

5. Proposed modifications to development standards shall meet the following criteria to be approved by the zoning administrator: a. The proposed modifications are necessary to provide sufficient economic incentive to offset the cost of providing the affordable housing units; b. The proposed modifications are necessary to achieve the permitted density, including the bonus units and affordable units; and c. The proposed modifications are consistent with public health, safety, and welfare, and specifically does not create any safety hazard.

22. 52. 050 Agreements and Covenant. Prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy, the proponent shall record with the Snohomish County auditor’s office, in a form approved by the city, an agreement specifying the affordable nature of the units. The agreement shall constitute a covenant running with the land, A. Contents of the Agreement. The agreement shall specify the terms and conditions of the affordable units to assure that the units remain affordable as required under this section and the agreement shall include at a minimum the following:

1. The total number of units approved for the housing development, including the number of target units;

2. A description of the household income group to be accommodated by the housing development and the standards for determining the corresponding affordable rent or affordable sales price and housing cost;

147

3. The location, unit sizes in square feet, and number of bedrooms of target units;

4. Tenure of use restrictions for affordable units;

5. A schedule for completion and occupancy of affordable units;

6. A description of any additional incentive(s);

7. A description of remedies for breach of the agreement by either party. The city may identify tenants or qualified purchasers as third-party beneficiaries under the agreement; and

8. Other provisions to ensure implementation and compliance with this chapter.

B. Ownership Housing Developments. In the case of for-sale housing developments, the agreement shall provide conditions governing the initial sale and use of affordable units during the applicable restriction period:

1. Affordable units shall, upon initial sale, be sold to eligible lower income households at an affordable sales price and housing cost;

2. Affordable units shall be owner-occupied by eligible lower-income households, or by qualified residents in the case of senior citizen housing; and

3. The initial purchaser of each affordable unit shall execute an instrument or agreement approved by the city restricting the sale of the target unit in accordance with this chapter during the applicable use restriction period.

C. Rental Housing Developments. In the case of rental housing developments, the agreement shall provide conditions governing the use of affordable rental units during the use restriction period:

1. The rules and procedures for qualifying tenants, establishing affordable rent, filling vacancies, and maintaining target units for qualified tenants;

2. Provisions requiring owners to verify tenant incomes and maintain books and records to demonstrate compliance with this chapter; and

3. Provisions requiring owners to submit an annual report to the city, which includes the name, address, and income of each person occupying target units, and which identifies the bedroom size and monthly rent or cost of each target unit.

D. Compliance Report. Any developer of a project under this chapter shall demonstrate that a public or private nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization, county, state, or federal agency is responsible for tracking and enforcing the affordability requirements. Said entity shall report on compliance with the affordability requirements to the city annually, or as requested.

148

II. Negotiable Incentives There are numerous negotiable incentives which can be offered to housing developers, such as contribution of products, lands and services, city-wide development incentives, tax incentives, and street beautification. Below are incentives the author has gleaned from various cities.

Products and Services Credit enhancement Waiver of building permits and other fees Unit type, height and space exemptions Surplus property for affordable housing Parking reduction Open space Transit passenger shelters Required road paving Applicable Regional Stormwater Facilities

City-Wide Development Incentives MFTEs B&O Tax reductions Transportation Impact Fee reductions Density bonus program Fee waivers Expedited permitting Pre-Approved Plans Special Valuation Tax Exemption Program System Development Charges (SDC) reduction Downtown Main Street Program (See Tax Incentives section) Sale of a property at less than fair-market value Priority permitting Contribution of public infrastructure and park amenities Provide renovation of historical buildings such as the Wagner Performing Arts Center

Street furnishings Lighting fixtures Park and benches Garden parks and furnishings Trash and matching recycling receptacles Bike rack or individual bike rack holders (see City of Bothell for innovative designs) Gazebos Street lamps Unique paving materials such as brick or stone Pervious sidewalks Wide sidewalks

149

Build bus stop pads (Community Transit requires cities to provide bus stop pads in exchange for bus shelters, as needed) Signage Playgrounds on premises, in parks, or in undevelopable neighborhood infill lots Public open spaces Mid-block pedestrian connections Provide small icons, which are part of the wayfinding system and relate to the overall theme of the corridor. They provide additional visual elements which enhance the pedestrian quality of the space.

150

III. FUNDING SOURCES EXPLAINED Government programs at all levels are involved in promoting and funding affordable housing in our communities.

Federal Funding The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) At the federal level, affordable and market-rate homeownership is subsidized through the Mortgage Interest Deduction (MID), while rental subsidies are provided by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). It should be noted that in terms of federal expenditures and collected revenues, in 2014, 72% of federal subsidies for housing went to homeownership programs, like MID.

The first three HUD-operated programs below offer less than $6 million dollars in funding to Snohomish County. 63

HUD Operates the following major programs:

• Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Entitlement Program provides annual grants on a formula basis to entitled cities and counties to develop viable urban communities by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment. The program also expands economic opportunities, principally for low-and moderate-income persons. The program is authorized under Title 1 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, with broad use guidelines. All grants are oriented towards combating urban blight.

• HOME Investment Partnerships Program Designed to support cooperation with local nonprofits to buy, build and/or rehabilitate rental housing, or direct rental assistance to households (Everett - $0, Marysville, $0, County, $246k)

• Housing Choice Vouchers (commonly referred to as Section 8) HASCO currently administers contracts for 531 project-based voucher units. These vouchers are a subset of the 3,876 vouchers that HASCO administers under the Housing Choice Voucher program. The remaining vouchers are “tenant-based”, meaning that the household uses their voucher to help them pay their rent for a rental home on the private market.

* Existing programs like Tenant-Based Vouchers are highly underutilized, in part by limited available housing stock which meets HUD standards. In 2013, 41% of HUD Voucher recipients returned their vouchers unused. 64

∞ Funds allocated to local housing authorities on an annual basis to run voucher programs.

63 FY 2019 HUD Allocations report 64 2016 Pittsburgh Affordable Housing Task Force

151

∞ Tenant Based Vouchers (Section 8 Vouchers) or HCVs Given to low-income households at targeted AMIs for qualifying (safe, decent, sanitary and within price range) rental housing. Tenants may transfer to another participating location at their discretion, in coordination with the local housing authority.

• The Project Based Voucher (PBV) Program of Snohomish County This county program subsidizes HUD projects and privately-owned properties throughout its jurisdiction. Tenants residing in project-based units pay 30% of their income for rent and utilities, and the balance of their housing costs are paid for by the program. The voucher is attached to a specific unit or property. When a receiving household leaves the unit or property, they lose the voucher’s benefit. If a household has a PBV for more than one year and then chooses to move, they are eligible to receive a Housing Choice Voucher (HCV).

Continuum of Care (CoC) Funds The Continuum of Care (CoC) program is designed by HUD to promote a community-wide commitment to the goal of ending homelessness. It provides funding for efforts by nonprofit providers and state and local governments to quickly rehouse homeless individuals and families while minimizing their trauma and dislocation. In Snohomish County, CoC Program funds are currently used to support Permanent Supportive Housing and Rapid Rehousing. See (link) for more information about the CoC Program for the Everett/Snohomish County. (Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) is a model which combines low- barrier affordable housing, health care, and supportive services to help individuals and families lead more stable lives.)

The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) & Washington State Housing Finance Commission (WSHFC) The low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) program, created in 1986 and made permanent in 1993, is an indirect federal subsidy used to finance the construction and rehabilitation of low-income affordable rental housing. Washington lawmakers created this as an incentive for private developers and investors to provide more low-income housing (50-60% AMI households). The LIHTC is designed to subsidize either 30% or 70% of the low-income unit costs per project. Without the incentive, affordable rental housing projects often fail to generate sufficient profit to warrant the investment. The LIHTC gives investors a dollar-for-dollar reduction in their federal tax liability in exchange for providing financing for affordable rental housing development. Investors’ equity contribution subsidizes low-income housing development, allowing some units to rent at below-market rates. In return, investors receive tax credits paid in annual allotments, generally over 10 years. Financed projects must meet eligibility requirements for at least 30 years after project completion. The program has a 9% and a 4% tax credit program. Tax credits are distributed annually by the federal government to state housing finance agencies (WSHFC) for disbursement. The 9% tax credit is awarded in a competitive application on an annual basis. It is often used for homeless or extremely low-income, deeply subsidized housing. The 4% program is not competitive and is awarded throughout the

152

year. According to the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA), the 4% program is more often used for rehabilitation of existing housing, or the construction of less subsidized housing, usually at or close to 60% of Area Median Income.

In the 9% application process, Snohomish County projects compete against projects in other metropolitan counties – King, Spokane, Pierce and Clark. Due to the return on investment in subsidized housing in Snohomish County, the Alliance for Housing Affordability feels these applications are rarely competitive.

The National Housing Trust Fund The National Housing Trust Fund (HTF) is the first new housing resource since 1974 to target the building, rehabilitation, preservation, and operations of rental housing for extremely low-income people. Managed by the National Low-Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), this $245 million (2019) federal affordable housing program creates permanently affordable housing for extremely low-income households by splitting $245 million between 50 states plus the District of Columbia and the U. S. territories.

The United States Department of Agriculture, Rural Development (USDA RD)

For a complete list of Rural Housing and Community Facilities Programs, see (link)

USDA RD is committed to the future of rural communities. Through their numerous programs, they help to improve the economy and quality of life for rural Americans. The author has extensively interviewed managers of each of the following Washington State USDA RD programs for current information, and is only listing programs confirmed as “currently and sufficiently funded”. *Although Monroe is designated an urban community, the USDA RD confirms this municipality qualifies for the following funding for other reasons.

▪ United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 502 Housing Repair Loans Seniors age 62 years and older who own their homes and earn less than 30% of the AMI qualify for loans of up to $10,000. Loans are also available to homeowners with disabilities ages 18 and older who earn less than 60% of the AMI and qualify for up to $40,000. This is the only 100%-financed program in Washington State rural areas.

▪ USDA RD Facilities Loan *The city could consider applying this loan to renovate City Hall or the Wanger Performing Arts Center. According to this program’s Director, the City of Monroe is eligible based on the 2010 United States Census. Upcoming 2020 U. S. Census may take at least a year to process. The 2019 Loan fund has not been entirely distributed and application deadline for this cycle is September 30, 2019. The program encourages even large facilities to apply. The funding cycle will be updated at the beginning of its new FY cycle, October 1, 2019. This program provides up to

153

40-year loans, at a competitive 3. 375% interest rate, toward rehabilitation and construction of local government and other facilities. The loan fund accommodates up to $40 million for qualified recipients.

▪ USDA EMS Grants Program Approximately $280,000 in grant funding is spread across four quadrants in the state. Moneys are allocated to qualifying emergency service districts, such as the police and fire departments, up to $50,000 per quadrant. The state director of this program reports that this year, their total grant moneys were underutilized. The city has applied for this program three or four years ago, said the program’s director, and encourages the city to apply again.

State Funding Washington State government plays an important, but limited, role in affordable and subsidized housing.

The Washington State Housing Trust Fund The Washington State Department of Commerce administers this fund, which operates in a manner like WSHFC’s LIHTC application. Projects apply on an annual basis and are awarded funds to develop income-restricted properties. The Housing Trust Fund provides homes for low- and moderate- income households, people with special needs, the elderly and persons with disabilities. The fund supports weatherization and home repair programs like Energy Matchmakers, which helps reduce energy dependence, while decreasing the cost of energy for low-income families and improving the health and safety of their homes. In Snohomish County, the ratio of dollar amount applied for (by all projects in a year) and what is awarded is typically 4:1, according to the Alliance for Housing Affordability.

Washington’s HOME Program Administered by the State Department of Commerce, HOME rental development funds are awarded to nonprofit organizations, housing authorities, and local and tribal governments through the state Housing Trust Fund (HTF) application process. Current state-funded activities include preservation and development of low-income rental housing and tenant-based rental assistance (TBRA).

HOME assisted rental housing must comply with rent limitations that are set and published each year by HUD. Household income eligibility requirements vary depending on the HOME activity, but tend to target very low-income (less than 50 percent of Area Median Income) households.

Affordable Housing Sales Tax Adopted by the legislature in 2015, this law authorizes counties, cities and towns to place a ballot proposition before the voters for a sales tax up to 0. 1% for affordable housing and related services.

154

Document Recording Fees Document recording funding for homelessness programs. Counties charge fees on recorded documents and are permitted to retain a portion for affordable housing and homelessness programs.

EHB 1219 Use of REET 2 Revenues for Affordable Housing and Homelessness This bill authorizes counties and cities to use certain real estate excise tax (REET 2) revenues for facilities serving the homeless and for affordable housing projects until January 1, 2026. For more information on this bill, see this MRSC (link).

Local Funding Below are further explanations of some local funding sources.

Housing Trust Funds According to the National Housing Conference, pooling resources among small jurisdictions can be the most effective way to address housing affordability by attracting larger scale affordable housing development. Revenue sources for these funds can come from commercial linkage fees, local property tax levies, sales taxes from new development, and municipal membership donations. Local housing funds can also be an avenue for municipalities to create partnerships to address affordable housing at a regional level. Housing trust funds are distinct funds established by city, county or state governments to receive ongoing dedicated sources of public funding, with the intent to support the preservation and production of affordable housing. A public agency is typically responsible for collecting and distributing a fund’s resources and using these funds to provide grants and loans to relative nonprofit organizations. Common funding sources for these trust funds are real estate transfer taxes, penalties for late or delinquent payments of real estate excise taxes, and accumulated interest from transactions of real estate. The funds are flexible to the needs of different communities, such as focusing on the development of affordable housing in the downtown commercial area. A benefit of a trust fund is that it has a dedicated source of funding, not relying on government budgets. An elected body, such as a city council, votes to establish the fund. A thriving real estate market would be required to generate substantial funding, but city trust funds could also find foundation and corporate contributions. On the municipal level, there are 585 city housing trust funds in America this year, and the average amount of public and private funds leveraged for every dollar invested in affordable housing by these funds is $6.00. For a list of city housing trust fund revenues, see (link).

The Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA) Housing Trust Fund The AHA began its trust fund in 2018. While this fund’s goal is to support cities in the creation or retention of affordable housing, it does not provide rental or general household subsidies. Currently comprised of 13 member cities, this local, non-county-regulated trust is designed to operate off voluntary contributions (financial, in kind or otherwise) from its constituent members. Membership fees are based on per-capita constituency, and it is estimated that, should Monroe wish to join, the annual fee would be approximately $1,200. The HTF is designed to provide flexible, just-in-time funds to fill budget gaps, to demonstrate local commitment of funds, and to leverage other funding opportunities

155

(for example, WSHFC). The trust funds one or two projects per year and is currently assisting the City of Edmonds. Funding typically equates to approximately 10-15% of an affordable housing project. Member cities also benefit from the following free services:

۰Data analytics ۰GIS Systems ۰Comprehensive Plan updates (۰Technical expertise (writing and reviewing municipal codes (۰Education outreach to the City (such as promoting acceptance of affordable housing

For more information on the AHA Housing Trust Fund, contact Chris Collier, Program Manager, at 425. 293. 0601| [email protected]

The Snohomish County Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF) The AHTF is funded through the document recording fees and began in 2002, garnering $2.50 for each recording fee. The program could go towards new construction, preservation and rehabilitation of affordable housing. However, at this time it is strictly reserved for services and rental assistance.

Chemical Dependency Mental Health Sales Tax (CDMH) 1/10th of 1% of sales-tax in Snohomish County. $750,000 of this fund is set aside for the development of affordable housing for individuals with chemical dependency or mental health disorders. This fund is administered through Snohomish County’s Office of Housing and Community Development

Potential Partnerships Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) HASCO covers all of Snohomish County outside of the City of Everett. HASCO’s Project-Based Voucher (PBV) program provides housing assistance payment contracts (531 project-based voucher units) to properties throughout Snohomish County, allowing tenants to pay affordable income-based rents while offering market rents to property owners. In partnership with these property owners, this program provides more than 400 rent-subsidized permanent housing units in more than 20 properties in Snohomish County, serving seniors, people with disabilities, and families with children. Tenants pay 30% of their income for rent and utilities, and the balance of their housing costs are paid by the program to the property owner. Tenants receive rental assistance as long as they continue to qualify for the program.

HASCO has owned Monroe’s Fairview Apartment 30-unit affordable multifamily housing complex in the past, but has since sold it to Housing Hope. HASCO has an estimated 50 million dollars in HUD funding, and relies on other financing from nonprofits of its 2,400 multifamily units in Snohomish County, ranging from 12- to 300-unit complexes. At this time, HASCO works with no properties in the City of Monroe.

The Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA) (see above)

156

IV. Examples of “Tiny Home” Design Styles Provided by SquareOne Villages 2019 Website

157

Sources

158

Sources

*Due to time restrictions, this source list is presented in an abbreviated format. Sources are listed in alphabetical order.

• Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA) • American Community Survey 2017 • Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) • Association of Building Contractors (ABC) • Association of General Contractors (AGC) • Association of Washington Cities (AWC) • Boulder County Regional Housing Partnership, “Priorities and Strategies Ensuring a Diverse Housing Inventory” May 2017 • Challenge Seattle, “A Call to Action on Middle-Income Housing Affordability”, City of Olympia • City of Auburn City Planners • City of Bellevue City Planners • City of Bellingham City Planners • City of Bothell City Planners • City of Kirkland City Planners • City of Mill Creek City Planners • City of Monroe City Codes • City of Monroe Comprehensive Plan 2016 • City of Monroe Staff • City of Renton City Planners • City of San Diego City Planners • City of Seattle Parking Review, “Report to Council” April 2015 • Citylab.com • Community Transit (CT) • Condominium Association Institute (CAI) • Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU), “How to Get By-Right Zoning Right” • Curbed Seattle, “Seattle City Council Votes to Reduce Barriers to Building ADUs” • Data U.S.A. • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Reducing Stormwater Costs through Low Impact Development (LID) Strategies and Practices” • Evans School of Public Policy and Governance, “Under One Roof: Analysis of City-Level Affordable Housing Commitments and Actions to Meet Housing Needs in King County” • Factfinder.census.gov • Governing.com • Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County

159

• Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County, April 2018, “Housing Snohomish County Project Report” • Housing Development Consortium Seattle-King County • Housing Hope • HUDuser.gov, “Vacant and Abandoned Properties: Turning Liabilities into Assets” • In Focus Magazine, “Geographic Information Systems for Housing and Urban Development” • Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) Auditors Report, “Preliminary Report: 2019 Tax Preference Performance Reviews” (MFTEs)” • King County, “All Home” • Local Housing Solutions, “Deed-Restricted Homeownership Review” • Master Builders Association King and Snohomish Counties • Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC), Legislative updates, “Affordable Housing Legislative Round-Up” June 2019 • Office of Policy Development and Research, “Regulatory Barriers and Affordable Housing: Problems and Solutions” • Plantetizen.org, “Evaluating Affordable Housing Development Strategies” • Property Share, “FAR: The Significance of Floor-Area Ratio” • Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), “Vision 2050 Housing Background Paper” 2018 • Robert Weiler Company, “Investors’ Guide to Mixed-Use Property for Sale: Understanding the Live-Work-Play Hybrid” • Seattle Challenge, “The Invisible Crisis: A Call to Action on Middle-Income Housing Affordability • Shelter Force, “Municipal Land Banks vs. Community Land Trusts” • Smart Cities Dive • Strong Towns, “The Five Immutable Laws of Affordable Housing” • The Boston Globe, “If You’re Over 65, Here’s One of the Best-Kept Secrets in Massachusetts ” • The Form-Based Code Institute • The Urban Institute Metropolitan Housing and Communities Policy Center, “Keeping the Neighborhood Affordable: A Handbook of Housing Strategies for Gentrifying Areas • Trust for Public Land (TPL), 2009 Report “Measuring the Economic Value of a City Park System” • United States Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2017, Annual Economic Surveys, Annual Surveys of Governments • United States Department of Ecology (DOE) • United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), “Keeping the Neighborhood Affordable: A Handbook of Housing Strategies for Gentrifying Areas”; “Regulatory Barriers and Affordable Housing: Problems and Solutions: Exploring the Current State of Knowledge on the Impact of Regulations on Housing Supply” • United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes” • Urban Land Institute, “Community Catalyst Report” • Washington Demographics by Cubit • Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC) • Washington State Housing Finance Commission (WSHFC) • Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) • Whitehouse.gov, “Housing Development Toolkit” ● World Economic Forum, “Making Affordable Housing a Reality in Cities”

160