HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda
AGENDA
Planning & Development Committee Regular Meeting
4:30 PM - Thursday, October 11, 2018
Council Conference Room, 7th Floor, City Hall – 1055 S. Grady Way
1. Fire Code Amendments
a) AB - 2237 Community & Economic Development Department recommends revising
Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-5, Building and Fire Prevention Standards, to update
Private Smoking Clubs, Mobile Food Facilities, fire-suppression systems, and permit and
fee requirements.
2. Title IV Docket #13, Groups C & D
a) #D-153: Administrative Code Interpretations
b) #D-154: Multi-Family Property Tax Exemption & Waived Fees
3. Safe and Healthy Housing
a) Memo
4. Emerging Issues in CED
AB - 2237
City Council Regular Meeting - 01 Oct 2018
SUBJECT/TITLE: Fire Code Amendments
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Refer to Planning & Development Committee
DEPARTMENT: Community & Economic Development Department
STAFF CONTACT: Craig Burnell, Building Official
EXT.: 7290
FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY:
N/A
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The Renton Regional Fire Authority has requested updates to the amendments to the 2015 edition of the
International Fire Code.
• The updates establish a clear definition of Private Smoking Club and establish requirements for fire-
suppression systems and for mechanical exhaust systems for this use.
• The updates establish certain requirements for Mobile Food Facilities relating to fire extinguishers and
distance to buildings.
• The updates clarify the threshold for installation of automatic sprinkler systems in buildings 5000
square feet and greater.
• The updates establish clear requirement for permits required for maintenance or servicing of
commercial cooking hood suppression systems.
The updates to the amendments establish important safeguards to the public and provide clarification for
administration of the Fire Code.
EXHIBITS:
A. Ordinance
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the amendments to RMC 4-5 updating Private Smoking Clubs, Mobile Food Facilities, fire-suppression
systems, permit and fee requirements.
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. ________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING
SUBSECTIONS 4‐5‐070.C, 4‐5‐070.C.10, 4‐5‐070.C.16, 4‐5‐070.C.27, 4‐5‐070.C.33,
4‐5‐070.C.49, AND 4‐5‐070.C.54 OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE, AMENDING
THE CITY’S AMENDMENTS TO THE 2015 EDITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL FIRE
CODE, ADDING DEFINITIONS, ADDING A NEW SUBSECTION 4‐5‐070.C.78
REGULATING COMMERCIAL COOKING HOOD SUPPRESSION SYSTEM
CONTRACTORS, AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND ESTABLISHING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Subsection 4‐5‐070.C.10 of the Renton Municipal Code is amended as
follows:
10. Subsection 105.1.1, Permits required, of the International Fire Code,
2015 Edition, is hereby amended by adding a new subsection, to read as follows:
105.1.1.1 Operational permit fees. The fee for permits issued in
accordance with Subsection 105.6 of the International Fire Code and permits
issued for underground tank removal shall be as stipulated in the City of Renton
Fee Schedule Brochure. Fees for tank storage shall be assessed for each individual
tank.
Exceptions:
1. Permit fees for Class IIIB liquid storage shall be assessed for each
tank up to a total of five tanks, and no additional fee shall be charged for the sixth
through the tenth tank. The eleventh tank and each subsequent tank of Class IIIB
liquids shall be assessed per tank.
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
2
2. Permit fees for carbon dioxide systems used in beverage dispensing
applications shall be waived.
The permits shall expire one (1) year after date of issuance or as
otherwise noted on the permit. The permit fee shall be payable at or before the
time of issuance or renewal of the permit. In the event of failure to remit payment
for an operational permit within thirty (30) days after receipt of application or
renewal notice, the fee for the permit shall be double the amount of the above‐
stated fee a late fee as specified for Fire Plan Review and Inspection Fees in the
City of Renton Fee Schedule shall be assessed in addition to the permit fees.
SECTION II. Subsection 4‐5‐070.C.16 of the Renton Municipal Code is amended as
follows:
16. Subsection 105.6, Required operational permits, of the International
Fire Code, 2015 Edition, is hereby amended to add two a new subsections to read
as follows:
105.6.4950 Mobile Food Facilities. An operational permit is required
to operate a mobile food facility.
105.6.51 Commercial Cooking Hood Suppression System Contractor.
A permit is required for all companies performing any inspection, service,
maintenance or repair on commercial cooking hood suppression systems. This
permit shall be valid for twenty‐four (24) months.
SECTION III. Subsection 4‐5‐070.C.27 of the Renton Municipal Code is amended as
follows:
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
3
27. Section 202, General Definitions, of the International Fire Code, 2015
Edition, is hereby amended by adding the following definitions:
AUTOMATED EXTERNAL DEFIBRILLATOR (AED). An automated
external defibrillator (AED) is a portable automatic device used to restore normal
heart rhythm to patients in cardiac arrest.
MOBILE FOOD FACILITY. Permanent and nonpermanent food
operation vehicles that store, prepare, package, serve, vend, or otherwise provide
food for human consumption, on or off the premises.
PRIVATE SMOKING CLUB. A club that is privately operated, employs no
staff and is not open to the public, or which otherwise meets the criteria for such
a club as established by the King County Department of Public Health, that allows
flame lighted or heated smoking materials to be used for personal consumption
and is not located within single family residential or multi‐family residential
building.
SHALL. The word “shall” is defined to have the following meaning:
a. With respect to the functions and powers of the Fire Code
Official, any agents and employees of the City of Renton, and any Board authorized
hereunder, a direction and authorization to act in the exercise of sound discretion
and in good faith; and
b. With respect to the obligations upon owners, occupants of the
premises and their agents, there is a mandatory requirement to act in compliance
with this code at the risk of civil and criminal liability upon failure to so act.
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
4
SPECIAL EVENT. For the purposes of this code, events that have large
occupant loads or create a potential hazard to the participants or the community
shall be defined as a “special event” including:
a. Any event that occurs in a permitted place of assembly that
introduces a hazard regulated by this code and not approved at the time of the
issuance of the Place of Assembly Permit.
b. Any event with an occupant load that exceeds three hundred
(300) in a location that does not have a Place of Assembly Permit.
c. All temporary places of assembly.
TEMPORARY PLACE OF ASSEMBLY. An occupancy not classified as
“Assembly Group A” that is used for activities normally restricted to assembly
occupancies and limited to a period of less than thirty (30) calendar days of
assembly use.
SECTION IV. Subsection 4‐5‐070.C.33 of the Renton Municipal Code is amended as
follows:
33. Subsection 403.2, Group A occupancies, of the International Fire Code,
2015 Edition, is hereby amended by adding new subsections to read as follows:
403.2.5 Automated External Defibrillators (AED). Group A‐1 through
A‐5 occupancies and special events, with an occupancy load or event of three
hundred (300) or more persons, shall have available and maintain an AED on the
premises.
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
5
403.2.5.1 Placement. The location of the AEDs shall be as
determined by the Fire Code Official with a one way travel distance not to exceed
six hundred (600) feet.
403.2.5.2 Notification. The Fire Department shall be notified in
writing of the installation and location of an AED on the premises.
403.2.5.3 AED Maintenance. AEDs shall be maintained as per the
manufacturer’s requirements.
403.2.5.4 Automated External Defibrillator (AED) Training. Where
AEDs are required by this code, employees shall be trained in the use of and be
familiar with the locations of the AEDs.
SECTION V. Subsection 4‐5‐070.C of the Renton Municipal Code is amended to add a
new subsection 4‐5‐070.C.49, to read as shown below. All remaining subsections shall be
renumbered accordingly.
49. Section 609, Commercial Kitchen Hoods, of the International Fire Code,
2015 Edition, is amended to add a new subsection, to read as follows:
609.5 Type II hoods. Type II hoods shall be installed at or above
any heating appliance utilized for the processing and preparation of
smoking materials or smoking related paraphernalia for personal
consumption. Hoods shall comply with the requirements of the
International Mechanical Code. Only approved heating appliances shall be
used for the processing and preparation of smoking materials and/or
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
6
smoking paraphernalia. Heating appliances shall be installed in an
approved manner.
SECTION VI. Subsection 4‐5‐070.C.50, currently codified as 4‐5‐070.C.49, of the Renton
Municipal Code is amended as follows:
49.50. Chapter 6, Building Services and Systems, of the International Fire
Code, 2015 Edition, is hereby amended to add a new section, to read as follows:
SECTION 612
MOBILE FOOD FACILITIES
612.1 General. Mobile food facilities shall comply with this section.
612.2 Kitchen Hood. A Type I hood shall be installed at or above all
commercial cooking appliances and domestic cooking appliances used for
commercial purposes that produce grease laden vapors. Commercial kitchen
exhaust hoods shall comply with the requirements of the International
Mechanical Code. Hoods shall be inspected, tested and maintained in accordance
with NFPA 96.
612.3 Fire Extinguishers. Approved 2A:20BC 3A:40BC and Type K
rated fire extinguishers shall be provided in each mobile food facility as
determined by the Fire Code Official and the individual hazard presented by the
individual mobile food facility.
612.4 Liquefied petroleum gas (LP‐gas). LP‐gas shall be in
accordance with Chapter 61 and sections 612.4.1 and 612.4.2.
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
7
612.4.1 Maximum number and quantity. A maximum of two
LP‐gas containers (one hundred (100) pounds each) with a total aggregate water
capacity of two hundred (200) pounds is permitted at one mobile food facility.
612.4.2 LP‐gas cylinder hoses. Hoses shall be designed for a
working pressure of three hundred fifty (350) psig with a safety factor of five to
one (5:1) and shall be continuously marked with LP‐gas, propane, three hundred
fifty (350) working pressure and manufacturer’s name or trademark. Hose
assemblies, after application of couplings, shall have a design capacity of seven
hundred (700) psig. Hose assemblies shall be leak tested at time of installation at
not less than the operating pressure of the system in which they are installed.
612.4.3 LP‐gas cylinders. LP‐gas cylinders shall be secured in an
approved manner in an upright position. LP‐gas cylinders shall not be stored
within the facility at any time. If stored within a compartment, the compartment
shall have approved venting directly to the exterior and must not allow venting to
the interior of the facility at any time. If LP‐gas cylinder storage is added to the
rear of the facility, an appropriate, approved bumper shall be added to the rear of
the facility to provide adequate impact protection. Belly cylinder tanks shall be
installed according to DOT standards.
612.5 Location. Mobile food facilities shall not be located within
twenty ten feet (20'10’) of buildings, tents, canopies or membrane structures or
within ten feet (10') of any other mobile food facility.
Exceptions:
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
8
1. When mobile food facilities are positioned on public streets,
the distance from buildings may be reduced to five feet (5'). This exception is
designated for events lasting a maximum of no more than three (3) consecutive
calendar days in a row.
2. When located on private property, the distance from buildings
may be reduced to five feet (5’) if exposed by a fire wall constructed of materials
of clay or concrete only and having no openings such as windows or doors.
SECTION VII. Subsection 4‐5‐070.C.55, currently codified as 4‐5‐070.54, of the Renton
Municipal Code is amended as follows:
54.55. Subsection 903.2, Where required, of the International Fire Code,
2015 Edition, is hereby amended to read as follows:
903.2 Where required. Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new
buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this
section.
903.2.1 All newly constructed buildings with a gross square footage of
five thousand (5,000) or greater square feet, regardless of type of use as well as
zero lot line townhouses with an aggregate area of all connected townhouses
equaling five thousand (5,000) or greater square feet must be sprinklered
equipped with sprinklers in accordance with this Chapter. Additions to existing
buildings which would result in a gross floor area greater than five thousand
(5,000) square feet must be retrofitted with an automatic sprinkler system.
Exceptions:
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
9
1. One‐time additions to International Building Code Group R‐3
occupancies of up to five hundred (500) square feet are permitted without
compliance with this section.
2. Single‐family and duplex dwellings and townhouses built in
compliance with the International Residential Code and meeting fire flow and
access requirements of the City of Renton.
When not required by other provisions of this chapter, a fire‐
extinguishing system installed in accordance with NFPA 13 may be used for
increases and substitutions allowed in Subsections 504.3, 506.2 and Table 601 of
the Building Code.
903.2.2 All newly established building occupancy uses defined as
Private Smoking Clubs. Fire sprinklers shall be installed throughout the entire fire
area utilized for such occupancy, regardless of size of such occupancy.
SECTION VIII. Subsection 4‐5‐070.C of the Renton Municipal Code is amended to add a
new subsection 4‐5‐070.C.78, to read as shown below. All remaining subsections shall be
renumbered accordingly.
78. Subsection 904.12.6, Operations and maintenance, of the
International Fire Code, 2015 Edition, is hereby amended to add a new subsection
to read as follows:
904.12.6.4 Commercial Cooking Hood Suppression System
Contractor.
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
10
904.12.6.4.1 “Commercial Cooking Hood Suppression System
Contractor” Definition. A person or organization that offers to undertake the
execution of contracts or accepts payment for the inspection, maintenance, or
servicing of a commercial cooking hood suppression system.
904.12.6.4.2 Penalty for Violation. It shall be unlawful for any
person or organization to perform an inspection, maintenance, or servicing of a
commercial cooking hood suppression system contractor without a valid permit.
A violations of this section is a misdemeanor, punishable in accordance with RMC
1‐3‐1. Each separate instance where an inspection, maintenance or service was
provided constitutes a separate violation.
SECTION IX. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or work of this
ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court or competent jurisdiction,
such invalidity or unconstitutionality thereof shall not affect the constitutionality of any other
section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this ordinance.
SECTION X. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after
publication of a summary of this ordinance in the City’s official newspaper. The summary shall
consist of this ordinance’s title.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this _______ day of ___________________, 2018.
Jason A. Seth, City Clerk
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
11
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this _______ day of _____________________, 2018.
Denis Law, Mayor
Approved as to form:
Shane Moloney, City Attorney
Date of Publication:
ORD:2014:9/18/18:scr
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
CITY OF RENTON
Community and Economic Development Department
h:\ced\planning\title iv\docket\d-153 administrative code interpretations\d-153 staff report.docx September 26, 2018
Administrative Code Interpretations
Staff: Katie Buchl-Morales
Date: September 26, 2018
Applicant or Requestor: N/A
______________________________________________________________________________
General Description: Title IV, Development Regulations, of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) are proposed
to be amended based on recent administrative interpretations (attached) of unclear or contradictory
code. These administrative decisions have already become effective. This report to the Planning
Commission is part of the formal process by which code is to be amended based on such decisions.
Municipal code section 4-1-080 provides guidance for Administrative Interpretations as it states:
RMC 4-1-080.A.1.a: The Community and Economic Development Administrator, or designee, is
hereby authorized to make interpretations regarding the implementation of unclear or
contradictory regulations contained in this Title. Any interpretation of the Renton Title IV
Development Regulations shall be made in accordance with the intent or purpose statement of
the specific regulation and the Comprehensive Plan. Life, safety and public health regulations
are assumed to prevail over other regulations.
Interpretations are needed where there are unclear or contradictory regulations. Examples include
mistakenly placed text, sections of code that lack predictability for users, and where certain situations
were not evaluated in updating Title IV. Each decision has a public appeal period and is supplied with a
background, justification, decision, and recommended code amendment. For more information about
the process or each determination, go to:
Process: http://rentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id=24684
Background and decision:
https://www.rentonwa.gov/city_hall/community_and_economic_development/long_range_pla
nning/administrative_policy___code_interpretations/
Staff Recommendation: Amend code as described by each Administrative Code Interpretation shown
below.
Impact Analysis:
Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan
None
Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities
None
Effect on the rate of population and employment growth
None
Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable
Not applicable
Effect on general land values or housing costs
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
#D-153 Page 2 of 4 September 13, 2018
None
Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected
Not applicable
Consistency with GMA and Countywide Planning Policies
Not applicable
Effect on critical areas and natural resource lands
None
Staff recommends codifying all code amendments as written within each Administrative Code
Interpretation abbreviated below.
CI-127 – Commercial/Office and Residential Thresholds in the COR Zone: ON HOLD
CI-128 – Security Devices for Landscaping Maintenance: CI-128 requires a security device
prior to the recording of any plat and added a provision to permit use of security bonds as a
way to ensure continued landscaping maintenance.
CI-129 – Residential Outdoor Storage: Extended outdoor storage provisions for zones R-6,
R-10 and R-14; these zones were previously not cited.
CI-130 – Fire Impact Fees for Non-profit Organizations: Fire impact fee amounts for
emergency response is determined by a Rate Study, which estimates fees needed for service
based on the actual costs of providing services and the historical frequency of service
needed based on land use. CI-130 removed non-profit organizations from the fee schedule
because the Regional Fire Authority documents their emergency response activity based on
land use. “Non-profit” status refers to tax-exemptions granted by the Internal Revenue
Service and has no bearing on land use; documenting emergency responses based on non-
profit status can result in inaccurate predictions of future emergency needs.
CI-131 – Remove the Density Requirement for Assisted Living Facilities in the CO Zone:
Clarified and re-applied the geographic boundaries associated with assisted living facilities,
which permits them in the area around Valley Medical Center. The boundaries were
inadvertently removed with the adoption of Ordinance 5675 in 2012. Secondly, CI-131
removed the minimum density requirement for assisted living facilities because the
minimum density threshold was intended for mixed use developments near transit, not
assisted living facilities.
CI-132 – Restricted Hours of Operation for Mobile Food Vendors: RESCINDED
CI-133 – Storm Drainage Facility Perimeter Landscaping: CI-133 added a provision that
requires perimeter landscaping for storm drainage facilities to be located within the storm
drainage tract. The provision was added because staff has received proposals that located
portions of the perimeter landscaping on single family lots in order to decrease the size of
the stormwater tract and increase the developments yield. The added requirement
increases the likelihood of proper maintenance and protects adjacent property owners from
incurring costs associated with perimeter landscaping maintenance.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
#D-153 Page 3 of 4 September 13, 2018
CI-134 – Unit Lot Subdivisions in the CV Zone: Clarified that design regulations and parking
requirements for unit lot subdivisions are applied consistently to the R-10, R-14, RMF, and
CV zones, and granted more flexibility for the building orientation of unit lot subdivisions.
CI-135 – Time Limits for Approved PUDs Not Associated with a Subdivision: Removed
conflicts in time limits/expirations for Planned Urban Developments that are not associated
with subdivisions and made time limits/expirations consistent with the site plan review
process. Prior to CI-135 approval time limits for PUDs were unclear due to two competing
expirations. Additionally, the amount of time allotted for large scale commercial/multi-
family PUDs was not reasonable given the amount of time needed to prepare, submit, and
gain approval of building permits and complete construction.
CI-136 – Denial of TUPs: RMC-4-9-240.J clearly authorizes the Administrator to accept,
modify, or condition a Temporary Use Permit; denial powers were unintentionally omitted.
CI-136 affirmed denial as an administrative power available to the Administrator for the
review of TUPs, reflecting the powers given to the Administrator for other discretionary
permits.
CI-137 – Comprehensive Land Use Map: Code and text of the Comprehensive Plan indicate
that the CN Zone implements the Residential High Density (RHD) land use designation; the
Comprehensive Land Use Map incorrectly shows the land use designation for CN zoned
parcels as Commercial Mixed Use. CI-137 corrects the discrepancy to show that CN zoned
parcels are designated RHD.
CI-138 – Residential Design; Materials and Color: Clarifies that where masonry siding is
proposed at the edge of the façade, it shall also extend along the adjoining face no less than
twenty four inches.
CI-139 – Definition of Big Box Retail: Re-named “big-box retail” to “wholesale retail” and
amended the definition to address the following: type of consumers, type of products sold,
the display and storage of products, and nature of how products are delivered/retrieved
from the building rather than the size of the building. The revisions reflect that retail uses
should be categorized by the nature of the business rather than physical characteristics of
the building.
CI-140 – Retroactive Application of ULS Code: In 2016, code was developed for Unit Lot
Subdivisions, which allows for the subdivision of land underlying townhouse units. At the
time of adoption a provision was included to allow subdivision of land of existing townhouse
developments. CI-140 added a provision that limits retroactive application of ULS code to
townhouse developments that obtained a Certificate of Occupancy prior to the adoption of
the ULS code in order to prevent circumvention of standards applicable to the ULS code
(e.g., street standards).
CI-141 – Nonconforming Uses; Manufactured Home Parks and Detached Dwellings: RMC 4-
10-060 provides standards for existing legally established uses that do not comply with
current regulations for the zone. CI-141 added a provision that allows the placement of a
manufactured home on a previously approved manufactured home park “lot,” regardless of
zoning. An additional provision was added to permit nonconforming, detached single-family
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
#D-153 Page 4 of 4 September 13, 2018
dwellings to be altered or enlarged subject to the development standards and use
provisions of the R-14 zone rather than the commercial zoning standards that might
otherwise be applicable.
CI-142 – Residential Design; Scale, Bulk, and Character: Reinforces the intention of this
code section, which is aimed at establishing diverse residential communities. CI-142 requires
that a variety of elevations and models that demonstrate a variety of home sizes, character,
and a diverse streetscape shall be used. Abutting, adjacent, and diagonal houses must have
differing architectural elevations.
CI-143 – Noise Level Regulations; Designation of Zoned Areas: By designating local
Environmental Designations for Noise Abatement (EDNA) by zone, the City unintentionally
created circumstances where multi-family developments in commercial zones are not
afforded the same noise regulations as multi-family development in residential zones. CI-
143 removed zone specific EDNAs from Code and adopts by reference Washington
Administrative Code Section 173-60-030, which designates EDNAs by use. PENDING
CI-144 – Site Plan Review for Medical Institutions, Assisted Living and Convalescent Care in
Low Density Residential Zones (RC-R-8): Created a provision that requires site plan review
for medical institutions, assisted living, and convalescent care facilities, regardless of zone.
Prior to CI-144, site plan review was not required in low density residential zones and was
added due to the scale and intensity of such projects. PENDING
CI-145 – Clear Vision Area: Amended the definition of “clear vision area” to allow a
maximum structure or planting height of forty two inches and prohibited signs over forty
two inches in height within twenty of intersections and driveways. Changes were needed to
create consistent application of clear vision area standards, as the majority of code sections
already reflect forty two inches as the maximum height limit for structures in the clear vision
area. PENDING
CI-146 – Rear Yard Setbacks for ADUs: Clarified that the rear setback for accessory dwelling
units (ADUs) with a garage or carport should be measured from the farthest edge of the
alley right-of-way, rather than the back edge of the alley and that rear yard setbacks for
ADUs that do not incorporate a garage or carport should be measured from the rear
property line of the property in which it is located. PENDING
CI-147 – Reconsideration of Shoreline Permits: Clarified that reconsideration requests are
not permitted for permits subject to the Shoreline Management Act, including Shoreline
Substantial Development Permits, Shoreline Conditional Use Permits, and Shoreline
Variances. Due to the difference in appeal processes between shoreline permits and other
locally issued permits or decisions, the option of a reconsideration request is not
appropriate for any type of shoreline permit. PENDING
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Multi-Family Housing Incentives Page 1 of 10 September 27, 2018
CITY OF RENTON
Community & Economic Development Department (CED)
#D-154 MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION & WAIVED FEES
Staff: Mark Santos-Johnson
Date: September 27, 2018
Applicant or Requestor: Administration
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
The Planning and Development Committee requested that CED staff review the Waived Fees multi-family
housing incentive and the Multi-Family Housing Property Tax Exemption housing incentive and recommend
applicable changes.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council established the Waived Fees multi-family housing incentive in 2001 and the Multi-Family
Housing Property Tax Exemption housing incentive in 2003. One or both of the multi-family housing
incentives have been instrumental in facilitating significant new multi-family housing development in the
City’s three highest priority redevelopment/revitalization areas, including Downtown Renton, the Sunset
Area, and the South Lake Washington area.
More specifically, to date, the Waived Fees multi-family housing incentive has been utilized by five
completed projects in Downtown Renton and the Sunset Area (including two market-rate condo projects in
Downtown Renton and three affordable rental projects in the Sunset Area) and the Multi-Family Housing
Property Tax Exemption housing incentive has been used by ten completed projects in Downtown Renton,
the Sunset Area, and the South Lake Washington area (including one market rate condo project, eight
market-rate rental projects, and one affordable housing rental project). [For more information, please
refer to the attached list of Waived Fee - Completed Projects (2001 – Current) and the attached list of
Multi-Family Housing Property Tax Exemption - Completed Projects (2003 – Current).]
Waived Fees – Background (RMC 4-1-210B and RMC 4-2-210C)
The Waived Fees include two elements, an owner-occupied housing incentive (RMC 4-1-210B) and a rental
housing incentive (RMC 4-2-210C). In 2001, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 4913 [codified in RMC
4-1-210B (Waived Fees – Owner-Occupied Housing Incentive) as subsequently amended] to allow certain
development and mitigation fees for “For Sale” housing to be waived to encourage owner-occupied
housing in Downtown Renton. In 2010, the City Council extended the incentive to include eligible owner-
occupied housing in the Sunset Area.
The Waived Fees housing incentive currently include the following applicable fees which may be waived by
the City Council for an eligible project: building permit fees; building permit plan review fees; water,
surface water, and wastewater system development charges; Public Works plan review and inspection fees;
and fire, transportation, and parks impact mitigation fees.
The owner-occupied Waived Fees housing incentive applies to eligible new construction projects with 100%
of the housing units platted or condominium “For Sale” housing in the Center Downtown (CD), Center
Village (CV), Residential 14 Dwelling Units/Acre (R-14), and Residential Multi-Family (RM-F) zones that are
also located in Downtown Renton or the Sunset Area.
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
Multi-Family Housing Incentives Page 2 of 10 September 27, 2018
In addition to being located in one of the targeted areas noted above, eligible multi-family owner-occupied
housing projects must, for example, be newly constructed and have a minimum of 30 attached dwelling
units if located in the CD or CV zones or a minimum of ten attached dwelling units if located in the R-14 or
RMF zones.
In 2011, the Renton City Council approved Ordinance 5617 [codified in RMC 4-1-210C (Waived Fees –
Rental Housing Incentive) as subsequently amended] to allow certain development and mitigation fees for
rental housing to be waived to encourage new multi-family rental housing in the Sunset Area (but not
Downtown Renton – where only owner-occupied housing continued to be eligible for waived fees). The
incentive applies to eligible new multi-family rental housing in the CV, RM-F, and R-14 zones and also
located in the Sunset Area. Eligible new affordable multi-family rental housing projects in the Sunset Area
received a 100% fee waiver (if a minimum of 50% of the units are set aside as affordable housing for
households at or below 60% of the Area Median Income) and eligible new market-rate multi-family rental
housing projects received a 50% fee waiver.
In addition to being located in the Sunset Area, eligible multi-family rental housing projects must, for
example, be newly constructed and have a minimum of 30 attached dwelling units if located in the CV zone
or a minimum of eight attached dwelling units if located in the RM-F or R-14 zones.
Both the owner-occupied housing Waived Fees incentive and the rental housing Waived Fees incentive
expire on December 31, 2018, unless extended by City Council action.
Examples of Waived Fees Savings for Project
The amount of development and mitigation fee savings for a project depends upon many things, including
the nature, quality, and cost of the multi-family housing (e.g., size, type, parking, and amenities) and the
applicable fee rates at the time. For illustration purposes, the estimated savings are noted below for one
owner-occupied Waived Fees housing incentive project and one rental housing Waived Fees incentive
project.
Based on the current rates and projections completed at the time (2001), the 55 Williams project with 37
units was expected to receive a total savings of approximately $118,994 from the owner-occupied Waived
Fees housing incentive, including $43,748 in fire, transportation and parks mitigation fees, $41,440 in water
and wastewater system development charges, and $33,806 in building permit fees. (There were no surface
water system development charges since 100% of the site was already an impervious surface from the prior
use.) The incentive worked out to a savings of approximately $3,216 per unit in 2001.
Based on the current rates and projections completed at the time (in 2011), the Glennwood Avenue
Townhomes with eight units was expected to receive a total savings of approximately $52,916 from the
rental housing Waived Fees incentive, including $28,609 in water, wastewater, and surface water system
development charges, and $24,307 in building permit and plan review and inspection fees. (There were no
mitigation fees since the project included eight replacement housing units.) The incentive worked out to a
savings of approximately $6,615 per unit in 2011.
Multi-Family Housing Property Tax Exemption – Background (RMC 4-1-220)
The Multi-Family Housing Property Tax Exemption (Exemption) provision allows the value of qualified new
housing construction to be exempt from ad valorem property tax for a limited period of time after
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
Multi-Family Housing Incentives Page 3 of 10 September 27, 2018
completion of the project1. However, the Exemption does not include the value of the land, existing
improvements or non-housing-related improvements (e.g., commercial space). The Exemption applies to
all levels of the ad valorem property tax, including the local jurisdiction, county, state, and all local taxing
districts. The Exemption is in addition to any other tax credits, grants, or incentives provided by law for the
multi-family housing.
At one time, the Exemption applied to three areas in Renton (Downtown Renton, the Sunset Area, and the
South Lake Washington area), however the City Council omitted the South Lake Washington Area after
three projects with a total of 1,075 units were completed by 2010. The exemption currently applies only to
eligible new multi-family housing projects in Downtown Renton or the Sunset Area. Eligible multi-family
housing projects must, for example, be newly constructed and have a minimum of 30 attached dwelling
units if located in the CD or CV zones or a minimum of ten units if located in the R-14 or RMF zones.
Example of Multi-Family Housing Property Tax Exemption Savings for Project
For the most recent project approved by the City Council, the 108-unit Sunset Terrace market-rate rental
project in the Sunset Area, the estimated potential property tax savings (based on 2017 rates and
projections) from the Exemption was approximately $182,129 per year ($1.46 million for the eight-year
period). This equates to a potential property tax savings of approximately $1,686 per year per housing unit
($13,941 per housing unit for the eight-year period). The City’s portion of the above estimated potential
property tax savings related to the Exemption is approximately $40,809 per year ($326,476 for the eight-
year period) for the Sunset Terrace project.
NOTE: The Multi-Family Housing Property Tax Exemption is treated by the King County Assessor similar to
other exempt properties. Essentially, the City’s levy rate is increased when properties are exempt, but the
total property tax revenue remains the same for the City (i.e., since the tax liability is shifted to the non-
exempt property owners, there is no lost City property tax revenue). However, for property taxpayers, the
increased levy rate means that the non-exempt property owners pay a higher property tax as exempt
properties are excluded from the tax roll but not from the tax liability.
The Multi-Family Housing Property Tax Exemption incentive is scheduled to sunset on December 31, 2018,
unless extended by City Council action.
Interim Control for Multi-Family Housing Incentives
On June 25, 2018, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 5884 wherein an emergency interim control was
declared and imposed to prohibit the submission of, acceptance of, processing or, or decision on any
applications for the two multi-family housing incentives, subject to some minor exceptions. The interim
control is in effect until December 25, 2018, unless subsequently extended by the City Council. A public
hearing was held on August 13, 2018, regarding the interim control ordinance and staff provided a briefing
to the Planning and Development Committee on August 20, 2018.
Both of the multi-family housing incentives currently sunset on 12/31/2018, unless otherwise extended by
the City Council.
1 In 2007, the Washington State Legislature passed the Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 1910, in part,
to modify the limited the property tax exemption for future eligible projects to eight years or 12 years (the
longer term being available if the project provides at least 20% of the units as affordable housing).
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
Multi-Family Housing Incentives Page 4 of 10 September 27, 2018
The Administration believes that the housing incentives should be used as a tool to encourage multi-family
housing development in the City’s priority community revitalization and redevelopment areas and/or to
encourage more affordable multi-family housing in the City AND that an incentive should only be provided
to market-rate multi-family housing projects that are the highest and best use of the applicable zoned-
property. Staff have reviewed the history and use of the multi-family housing incentives and the City’s
current community revitalization and redevelopment priorities and affordable housing needs and, as a
result, have made a number of proposed changes to the multi-family housing incentives as noted below.
Waived Fees – Proposed Changes (RMC 4-1-210B and RMC 4-1-210C)
1. To utilize the incentive to better respond to the community’s needs for more affordable housing, limit
the Waived fees multi-family housing incentive to eligible affordable rental or homeownership projects
and extend the incentive for three years (December 31, 2021).
Unlike the Multi-Family Housing Property Tax Exemption incentive, the Waived Fees multi-family
housing incentive results in a loss of revenue to the City. In order to align the Waived Fees with the
greatest public benefit, staff recommend that only eligible affordable rental housing or affordable
owner-occupied housing receive the Waived Fees incentive in the future (i.e., no market-rate rental
housing or market-rate owner-occupied housing will be eligible to receive the Waived Fees incentive).
In order to be able to use the Waived Fees incentive to encourage more affordable housing in the
community, staff recommends that the provision (as amended herein) be extended for three years to
December 31, 2021.
2. In order to support the City’s Comp Plan Housing Element and more effectively encourage and support
the development of additional new affordable rental or homeownership housing, expand the Waived
Fees for eligible low-income housing projects throughout the City and determine the minimum amount
of affordable housing per zone for a project.
In order to better respond to the affordable housing crisis in our region and to support a variety of
affordable housing throughout Renton, staff recommend that the Waived Fees be expanded to all
eligible zones throughout the City with a minimum number of affordable housing units per project
depending upon the specific zone and whether the project is an affordable homeownership project
(e.g., either ten or 30 units depending upon the allowed density of each zone).
3. To better respond to the community’s needs for more affordable housing, modify or establish the
income limits for affordable housing (see 4 and 5 below) and require that any developer for an
affordable housing project demonstrate their experience and/or ability and provide a third-party entity
for compliance monitoring.
Unfortunately, the City does not have adequate staff to do compliance monitoring for income eligibility
and rental rates or sale prices for affordable housing projects in Renton. Generally projects developed
by a non-profit organization or public housing authority utilize funding provided by King County and/or
State of Washington, both of which have compliance monitoring staff. However, to help ensure that
any affordable housing project that receives the Waived Fees incentive is operated well and complies
with the applicable income eligibility requirements, staff recommend that any developer for an
affordable housing project demonstrate their experience and/or ability to provide affordable housing
and provide a third-party entity for compliance monitoring.
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
Multi-Family Housing Incentives Page 5 of 10 September 27, 2018
4. Modify the low-income housing requirement for affordable rental housing for a project funded by the
federal low-income housing tax credit program if the project owner elects to do income averaging so
that all of the housing units must be affordable at or below 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) and
the average for all of the housing units are affordable at or below 60% of AMI. Otherwise, the current
60% of AMI requirement applies to all of the affordable rental housing units.
A major source of potential funding for affordable rental housing projects is the federal Low-Income
Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program. As part of the federal tax code changes adopted by the U.S.
Congress last year, the LIHTC program was changed to allow for income averaging as described above.
Staff recommends modifying the low-income housing requirement for the Waived Fees affordable
rental housing incentive to allow for this option for a LIHTC-funded affordable housing project.
5. To better align with potential public funding, reduce the minimum number of units in an affordable
homeownership project in higher density zones.
King County and the State of Washington are the two most common and significant public funders to
support affordable homeownership projects. Unfortunately, both of them have a limited amount of
funds and/or limit the amount of funds per housing unit that they are willing to provide for a project.
Consequently, it is difficult to do large affordable homeownership projects. Staff recommends a
minimum of ten units for an eligible affordable homeownership project for any eligible zone in the City.
6. Establish a low-income housing requirement for affordable homeownership housing to require a
minimum of 50% of the housing units at or below 80% of AMI with the balance of the housing units at
or below 120% of AMI.
RMC 4-1-210B (Waived Fees – Owner-Occupied Housing Incentive) currently does not distinguish
between market-rate housing and affordable housing. However, since staff are recommending in item
5 above that affordable homeownership projects be allowed to have a lower minimum number of
housing units in higher density zones, we need to establish an affordable housing definition for the
owner-occupied Waived Fees incentive.
Many non-profit organizations target affordable homeownership for households at 80% of AMI or less.
However, some non-profit organizations would like to be able to include some moderate income (i.e.,
120% of AMI or less) affordable units in order to be able to help subsidize and increase the number of
80% of AMI or less affordable units that can be included in a project. To provide more flexibility for
developers to create affordable homeownership for households at 80% of AMI or less, staff
recommend establishing a low-income housing requirement for affordable homeownership housing to
require a minimum of 50% of the housing units at or below 80% of AMI with the balance of the housing
units at or below 120% of AMI.
7. Consult with the Renton Regional Fire Authority on whether to retain the fire impact mitigation fee as
an eligible waived fee.
Since the Waived Fee multi-family housing incentive was last extended in 2015, Renton residents
approved the Renton Regional Fire Authority. Staff are working with the Renton Regional Fire
Authority to discuss the proposed modifications to the Waived Fees incentive. Staff would like to
maintain the fire impact mitigation fee as an eligible waived fee, but we will only be able to do so with
the support of the Renton Regional Fire Authority.
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
Multi-Family Housing Incentives Page 6 of 10 September 27, 2018
8. Require that the affordable rental housing be maintained for a minimum of thirty years and that the
80% affordable homeownership units be affordable in perpetuity through a community land trust or
other similar model acceptable to the City.
Housing affordability is a long-term and increasing problem for our region. In order to provide long-
term affordability for the multi-family housing projects that benefit from the Waived Fees incentive,
staff recommends that affordable rental housing be maintained for a minimum of thirty years and that
the 80% affordable homeownership units (but not the 120% affordable homeownership units) be
affordable in perpetuity through a community land trust or other similar model acceptable to the City.
The developer’s ability to meet this requirement will be considered as part of their efforts to
demonstrate their experience and/or ability as referenced in item 3 above.
Multi-Family Housing Property Tax Exemption Program – Proposed Changes (RMC 4-1-220)
1. To continue to support the City’s priority community revitalization areas, extend the Multi-Family
Housing Property Tax Exemption (Exemption) program for three years (to December 31, 2021), unless
otherwise extended by the City Council and maintain the current Downtown Renton and Sunset Area
eligible areas.
In order to be able to continue to use Exemption incentive to encourage more multi-family housing
development and community revitalization in both Downtown Renton and the Sunset Area, the City’s
two current highest priority redevelopment areas, staff recommends that the Exemption (as amended
herein) be extended for three years to December 31, 2021.
2. To better respond to the community’s needs for more affordable housing, lower the income limits for
the affordable housing units (e.g., from 80% to 60% of the area median income for affordable rental
housing and from 120% to 80% for affordable homeownership housing) and require that any developer
for a project with affordable housing demonstrate their experience and/or ability and provide a third-
party entity for compliance monitoring.
When the Washington State Legislature originally approved 84.14 RCW (“New and Rehabilitated
Multiple-Unit Dwellings in Urban Centers,” a.k.a. the multi-family housing property tax exemption
legislation program), the provision included a ten-year property tax exemption for eligible projects. In
2007, the WA State Legislature modified 84.14 RCW to provide an eight-year property tax exemption
for market-rate projects and a 12-year exemption for projects that included a minimum of 20% of the
units as affordable housing. To use the incentive to encourage affordable housing, the state essentially
offered a 50% increase in the length of the exemption for eligible projects. In 2007, the City modified
RMC 4-1-220 (Property Tax Exemption for Multi-Family Housing in Residential Targeted Areas) to
address the changes in 84.14 RCW and adopted the primary income standards that were included in
the new legislation with an 80% AMI for affordable rental housing and a 120% AMI for affordable
homeownership.
In July 2017, the City’s Long Range Planning staff provided an affordable housing presentation to the
Committee of the Whole. As part of the presentation, staff noted that South King County had
approximately 44,000 “cost burdened” rental households as of 2016 (i.e., households who pay more
than 30% of their income on housing) – 80% of whom are at 50% AMI or less. In addition,
approximately one-third of the rental households between 30% AMI and 50% AMI were “severely cost
burdened” (i.e., households who pay more than 50% of their income on housing) and approximately
80% of the rental households below 30% AMI were severely cost burdened.
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
Multi-Family Housing Incentives Page 7 of 10 September 27, 2018
The Housing and Human Services Element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan (adopted by the City
Council in 2015) notes in Policy HHS-9 that the City’s goal is to achieve a housing stock that is affordable
for the following minimum percentages of the City’s households, as determined by AMI range (and
otherwise reflected in the Countywide Planning Policies):
Total Households AMI______________________
12% Below 30% AMI (very low income)
12% 30% to 50% AMI (low income)
16% 51% to 80% AMI (moderate income)
As noted in the last year’s affordable housing presentation to the Committee of the Whole, here are
number of housing units needed in Renton to meet the above goal and the Countywide Planning
Policies for the City of Renton:
Income Limits 2016 2030 % of Population
Below 30% AMI (very low income) 2,993 4,773 12%
30% to 50% AMI (low income) Met 1,068 12%
51% to 80% AMI (moderate income) Met Met 16%
(For additional information, please see the attached Committee of the Whole Affordable Housing
presentation 7-10-2017.)
The current King County 80% Area Median Income (AMI) figures are $59,920 for a one-person
household and $85,600 for a four-person household; commensurate rents at the 80% of AMI are
$1,498 for a one-person household and approximately $2,026 for a four-person household. (For
additional information, please see the 2018 HUD King County Rent & Income standards via the
Washington State Housing Finance Commission’s website.)
Earlier this year, staff compiled the information below regarding some market-rate rental properties in
Renton. As a whole, the market rental rates were fairly close to the 80% AMI rental rates.
May 2018 Rents for Available Apartments
Apartment Studio 1 Bed 2 bed 3 bed
Altitude $1,405 $1,565 $1,930
Lofts $2,015 $2,090 $2,473
Sanctuary $1,573 $1,703 $2,281
Avaya Trails $1,865 $2,098 $2,544
Affordable Monthly Rent (30% Income)
Family Size 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1 $936 $1,124 $1,311 $1,498 $1,685 $1,873
2 $1,070 $1,284 $1,498 $1,712 $1,926 $2,140
3 $1,204 $1,445 $1,685 $1,926 $2,167 $2,408
4 $1,293 $1,551 $1,810 $2,068 $2,327 $2,585
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
Multi-Family Housing Incentives Page 8 of 10 September 27, 2018
The current King County 60% Area Median Income (AMI) figures are $44,940 for a one-person
household and $64,200 for a four-person household; commensurate rents at the 60% of AMI are
$1,123 for a one-person household and approximately $1,519 for a four-person household. (For
additional information, please see the 2018 HUD King County Rent & Income standards via the
Washington State Housing Finance Commission’s website.)
Given the great need for more affordable housing in the community and the need to provide more
housing that is affordable to more low-income households, staff recommend lowering the income
limits for the affordable housing units from 80% AMI or less to 60% AMI or less for affordable rental
housing and from 120% AMI or less to 80% AMI or less for affordable homeownership housing.
As noted above, unfortunately the City does not have adequate staff to do compliance monitoring for
income eligibility and rental rates or sale prices for affordable housing projects in Renton. Generally
projects developed by a non-profit organization or public housing authority utilize funding provided by
King County and/or State of Washington, both of which have compliance monitoring staff. However, to
help ensure that any affordable housing project that receives the Exemption incentive is operated well
and complies with the applicable income eligibility requirements, staff recommend that any developer
for an affordable housing project demonstrate their experience and/or ability to provide affordable
housing and provide a third-party entity for compliance monitoring.
3. To better align with potential public funding, reduce the minimum number of units in an affordable
homeownership project in higher density zones.
King County and the State of Washington are the two most common and significant public funders to
support affordable homeownership projects. Unfortunately, both of them have a limited amount of
funds and/or limit the amount of funds per housing unit that they are willing to provide for an
affordable homeownership project. Consequently, it is currently difficult to do large affordable
homeownership projects. Staff recommends a minimum of ten units for an eligible affordable
homeownership project for any eligible zone.
4. To target the incentive for the highest and best use projects, make market-rate townhomes ineligible in
higher density zones.
All of the approved Exemption projects to date have been multi-family flats rather than townhomes.
However, more recently, there has been an increased interest in townhome development in the City,
even when higher-density multi-family housing is allowed [such as in the Center Village (CV) zone in the
Sunset Area]. As noted above, the Administration believes that the Exemption incentive should only be
provided to market-rate multi-family housing projects that are the highest and best use of the
applicable zoned-property. Consequently, staff recommend that market-rate townhomes are ineligible
in the higher density CD and CV zones.
5. Table the “City Center TOD” area as a potential new eligible residential targeted area until the City
engages in a planning process and review for the “City Center TOD” area and modifies any applicable
zoning, density, and/or development regulations to support the plan.
CED, the Administration, the Planning and Development Committee, and the Planning Commission
have previously considered a request from a developer to modify the eligible areas for the Exemption
program to establish a “City Center TOD” area that would include property near the current South
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
Multi-Family Housing Incentives Page 9 of 10 September 27, 2018
Renton Park & Ride and the proposed new transit center on the adjacent “Sound Ford” property at the
northeast corner of Rainier Avenue S and S Grady Way. The developer’s property is zoned Commercial
Office (CO) which allows for residential use, but is primarily as office development zone.
The City is currently working with Sound Transit and Metro on preliminary plans for the proposed new
transit center on the “Sound Ford” property. However, staff have not had an opportunity to do any
long range land use planning for the area around the proposed new transit center, including but not
limited to potential changes in zoning, density, and/or development regulations, to most effectively
support the proposed new transit center.
As noted above, the Administration believes that the Exemption incentive should only be provided to
market-rate multi-family housing projects that are the highest and best use of the applicable zoned-
property. Furthermore, no long-range land use planning has been completed to establish a foundation
for whether or how the Exemption might best be utilized to support high-density multi-family housing
development and community revitalization in the area around the proposed new transit center.
Consequently, staff recommends that the request for a “City Center TOD” area be tabled at this time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends revising the Waived Fees and Multi-Family Housing Property Tax Exemption code
sections to effect the proposed changes noted above.
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan
Not applicable. There is no significant anticipated effect on the rate of growth, development, and
conversion of land envisioned in the Plan. However, we do anticipate that the proposed multi-family
housing incentive changes will create some new multi-family housing units in Downtown Renton and the
Sunset Area, the City’s two current highest priority redevelopment areas, and some new affordable housing
units in Renton.
Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities
Not applicable. There are no anticipated effects on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities.
Effect on the rate of population and employment growth
Not applicable. There are no significant anticipated effects on the rate of population and employment
growth created by the proposed changes. However, we do anticipate some increase in population and
employment from the proposed multi-family housing incentive changes.
Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable
The proposed multi-family housing incentive changes address a number of the Goals and Policies in the
Housing & Human Services Element of the Comprehensive Plan, including:
Goal HHS-A (Adopt practices to advance the provision of affordable housing for renters and
homeowners)
Policy HHS-1 (Provide resource assistance to potential new homeowners)
Policy HHS-3 (Work with organizations, including the Renton Housing Authority and non-profit
developers, to address the need for housing affordable to very low-income households)
Policy HHS-4 (Promote homeownership opportunities for households of all incomes)
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
Multi-Family Housing Incentives Page 10 of 10 September 27, 2018
Policy HHS-9 (Foster new housing to achieve a housing stock that meets the Countywide Planning
Policies for affordable housing)
Effect on general land values or housing costs
The affordable housing elements of the proposed changes in the multi-family housing incentives will help
create more new rental and owner-occupied housing development in Renton that is affordable to more
low- and/or moderate-income households in the community.
Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected
Not applicable. There are no anticipated effects on capital improvements or expenditures created by the
proposed changes.
Consistency with GMA, the Plan, and Countywide Planning Policies
The proposed amendments are consistent with GMA, the Plan, and Countywide Policies. (For additional
information, please refer to the information above for “Whether Plan objectives are being met…”
Effect on critical areas and natural resource lands
Not applicable. There are no anticipated effects on critical areas and natural resource lands.
ATTACHMENTS:
Waived Fee – Completed Projects (2001 to current)
Multi-Family Housing Property Tax Exemption – Completed Projects (2003 to current)
2018 HUD King County Rent & Income standards via the Washington State Housing Finance
Commission’s website
Committee of the Whole Affordable Housing presentation 7-10-2017
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
Waived Fees - Completed Projects (2001 - Current)
September 25, 2018
Project Name
Number
of
Housing
Units
Designated
Residential
Targeted Area Type of Housing
Market-Rate
or Affordable
Housing
Year
Completed
55 Williams 37 Downtown For Sale Market-Rate 2002
Chateau de Ville 50 Downtown For Sale Market-Rate 2008
Glennwood Townhomes 8 Sunset Rental Affordable 2012
Kirkland Avenue Townhomes 18 Sunset Rental Affordable 2014
Sunset Court Apartments 50 Sunset Rental Affordable 2018
Total 163
Summary of Completed Projects, Housing Units, and Type of Units by Targeted Area
Projects Housing Units For Sale Rental Market-Rate Affordable Housing
Downtown Renton 2 87 87 87
Sunset 3 76 76 76
Total 5 163 87 76 87 76
Note: The City Council has approved the 35-unit Sunset Mixed Use market-rate rental project in the Sunset Area for the Waived Fees, but the project
has not yet started construction.
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
Multi-Family Housing Property Tax Exemption - Completed Projects (2003 - Current)
September 25, 2018
Project Name
Number
of
Housing
Units
Designated
Residential
Targeted Area
Type of
Housing
Final
Certificate of
Tax
Exemption
Date
Number of
Years of
Exemption
First Year
of
Exemption
Final Year
of
Exemption
Merrill Gardens at Renton Centre 154 Downtown Rental 07/20/2007 10 2008 2017
Parkside at 95 Burnett 106 Downtown Rental 11/16/2007 10 2008 2017
The Bristol II at Southport 195 South Lake WA Rental 06/27/2008 10 2009 2018
Chateau de Ville 50 Downtown For Sale 12/16/2008 10 2009 2018
Liberty Square Apartments 92 Downtown Rental 7/23/2009 12 2010 2021
The Sanctuary 440 South Lake WA Rental 11/10/2009 10 2010 2019
The Reserve 440 South Lake WA Rental 7/28/2010 10 2011 2020
Harrington Square 217 Sunset Rental 9/1/2011 10 2012 2021
The Lofts at Second and Main 101 Downtown Rental 9/6/2017 8 2018 2025
Total 1,795
Summary of Completed Projects and Housing Units by Designated Residential Targeted Area
Projects Units
Downtown Renton 5 503
South Lake Washington 3 1,075
Sunset 1 217
Total 10 1,795
Note: The City Council approved the 108-unit Sunset Terrace rental housing project in the Sunset Area for an exemption, but
the project has not yet started construction.
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
King County
MTSP-Income and Rent Limits
Effective 411118
Median Income:$103,400.
Set-aside 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-Percentage person person person person person person person person
30%22470 25680 28890 32100 34680 37260 39810 42390
35%26215 29960 33705 37450 40460 43470 46445 49455
40%29960 34240 38520 42800 46240 49680 53080 56520
‘°‘°33705 38520 43335 48150 52020 55890 59715 63585
50%37450 42800 48150 53500 57800 62100 66350 70650
60%44940 51360 57780 64200 69360 74520 79620 84780
80%59920 68480 77040 85600 92480 99360 106160 113040
Set-aside Studio I -Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3-Bedroom 4-Bedroom 5-BedroomPercentage
30%561 601 722 834 931 1027
5%655 702 842 973 1086 1198
40%749 802 963 1113 1242 1370
45%842 902 1083 1252 1397 1541
50%936 1003 1203 1391 1552 1712
60%1123 1203 1444 1669 1863 2055 AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Committee of the Whole Presentation
July 10, 2017
1 AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
PRESENTATION OVERVIEW
1.The Need for Affordable Housing
2.Existing Methods to Increase Affordable
Housing in Renton
3.Staff’s Recommended Approaches to
Improve Efforts
2 AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
1.Significant employment and population growth in a
relatively short period;
2.High demand resulting in:
•Market-driven sale price/rent increases;
•Fast-paced redevelopment of older housing stock;
•Greater competition for all housing types; and
•Causing price increases throughout supply curve.
3.Median household incomes rising, but unevenly and
at much a lower rate than sale prices/rent.
3 AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
Source: King County
4Median Home Values: Zillow, 2017.
Median Rents: ACS One Year Estimates, US Census (2010-2015).
Median Income: ACS One Year Estimates, US Census (2010-2015)
Renton’s Population Growth
Benson Hill annexation
Source: OFM, 2010-2017
Renton Vacancy Rates x Housing Unit Type (2010-2016)AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
5
THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Notes:
•Potential population is defined as the estimated total number of people that could be housed within the sum of built housing stock based upon
historical averages. •Historical averages are 2.86 persons per single family home and 2.08 persons per multifamily home. based upon 2010-2016 data.•For example, in 2016 there were a total of 41,005 single family and multifamily homes in Renton. This represents a housing supply that could support
a potential population of 102,666. The actual number of people living in single family and multifamily homes, the population demand for housing,
was 99,262. As a result, the surplus supply outpaced demand by an estimated 3,404 people.•Population living in manufactured homes have been excluded for summary reporting purposes. •Source data is OFM, 2010-2016.
Renton Housing Supply Keeping Pace with Population Demand
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
•U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) determines the
Median Household Income –often referred to as Area Median Income (AMI)
•As of April 2017, the King County AMI is $96,000 for a family of four.
•Households that pay >30% of income on housing are “cost-burdened”
•>50% of income = “severely cost-burdened”
Source: Washington State Housing Needs Assessment: South King County
6 AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
•40% of Renton households are cost-burdened
•15.6% are severely cost-burdened
•48% of rental households are cost-burdened and
•44% of homeowners with a mortgage are cost-burdened
Source: Under One Roof: Analysis of City-Level Affordable Housing Commitments and Actions to Meet
Housing Needs in King County
•Renton Housing Authority ceased accepting housing
voucher program (Section 8) applications, and has 1,600
people on the current wait-list.
7 AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Position Annual (Starting)
Salary
“Affordable”
Monthly Rent
“Affordable” Home
Price
City of Renton
Civil Engineer I $66,000 $1,650 $289,473
Renton School District
Teacher with BA
*no experience
$35,700 $893 $156,578
Teacher with MA
*no experience
$42,800 $1,070 $187,719
KC Library System
Librarian $42,000 $1,050 $184,210
U.S. Postal Service
Mail Carrier $51,429 $1,285 $225,565
Postmaster $73,994 $1,849 $324,534
8
Sources: City of Renton;
Renton School District; and
Glassdoor.com AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Sources: Zillow and King County Dept. of Assessments
Apartments Studio 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed Location Year
Built
The Reserve $1,505+$1,695+$2,260+-The Landing 2008
The Lofts (2nd &
Main)-$1,475+$1,950+$2,410+Downtown 2017
Copper Ridge -$1,125+$1,375+$1,795+Talbot 1985
Grammercy -$1,360+$1,415+$1,925+Benson 1985
2017 King County Fair Market Rents According to HUD
Studio 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 4 Bed
$1,093 $1,249 $1,544 $2,240 $2,654
Actual Monthly Rent of Select Renton Apartment Complexes
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
Source: The Housing Development Consortium
Source: Northwest Multiple Listing Service
THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
10
Jurisdiction SFH Condo Res/Condo Combined
Federal Way $360,000 $152,500 $345,000
Des Moines $365,052 $185,000 $350,000
Auburn $369,500 $214,000 $355,000
Kent $380,000 $234,950 $360,000
Burien $421,511 $171,500 $400,000
Renton $477,753 $230,000 $435,000
King Co.$619,800 $361,000 $550,000
Seattle $695,941 $443,500 $632,000
Redmond $872,500 $419,500 $767,000
Bellevue $1,100,000 $470,000 $852,800
Median Home Sale Prices (January 2017 thru June 2017)
Income Limits 2016 2030 % of Pop.
0-30% AMI 2,993 4,773 12%
30%-50%AMI Met 1,068 12%
50%-80% AMI Met Met 16%
Housing Units Needed to Meet Countywide Planning Policies
•In 2012, the median home sale price in Renton was $299,975.
•The median sale price of single-family houses has averaged an annual ~11.8% increase for the past five
years.AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
EXISTING METHODS TO INCREASE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN RENTON
11
1.Bonus Density
2.Accessory Dwelling Units
3.Multifamily Property Tax Exemption
4.Waived Fees
5.Partnerships
6.Manufactured Home Park Zoning
7.Housing Repair Assistance Program
8.Regional Collaboration AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
BONUS DENSITY
•One bonus market-rate dwelling unit for each “affordable unit” (bonus
for Assisted Living Facilities is permitted outright)
•Units must remain affordable for the life of the project.
Affordable Housing
Subject Zones Maximum Density
CD, UC, CV, CO, COR, R-14,
and RMF
30% above maximum
density
12 AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
Permitted through a Conditional Use Permit:
1.Size:no more than 75% of the primary building’s footprint or 800 sq. ft.
(whichever is less);
2.Location:must be located in the rear yard;
3.Parking:at least one of-street parking stall is required;
4.Owner Occupancy: the owner of the property must reside in either one of
the units (i.e., both units may not be rented)
5.Compatibility:the ADU must be architecturally similar to the primary
residence.
•Reduced all applicable fees associated with ADUs (except school district
impact fees) to 50% of the current amounts; and
•Waive all fees (except school district impact fees) for every third ADU
created within a newly platted subdivision (10 or more lots).
•ADUs are charged school impact fees as multifamily units (ranges from 22%-
43% of single-family fee among the three school districts)
13 AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION
•Provides limited exemptions from property taxation for qualified new multi-
family housing located in designated residential targeted areas.
Location:
1.Sunset Area: Within the Sunset Area and in the Center Village (CV),
Residential Multi-Family (RMF), or the Residential-14 (R-14) Zone.
•At least 10 dwelling units; and
•>50% of project for residential occupancy.
2.Downtown:In the Downtown and within the Center Downtown (CD) Zone
or Residential-14 Zone (R-14).
•At least 30 dwelling units; and
•>50% of project for residential occupancy.
Exemptions:
•8 years for any qualifying project
•12 years for projects with >20% for rental at <80% AMI or for ownership
at <120% AMI
•NOTE: Staff recommends reducing the income levels to 50% AMI for
rentals and 80% AMI for ownership.
14 AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
Owner-occupied Housing:
Sunset Area
R-14 and RMF >10 units
CV >30 units
Downtown
R-14 >10 units
CD >30 units
Applicable Fees (*subject to City Council approval):
1.Building permit fees;
2.Building permit plan review fees;
3.Water, surface water, and wastewater system development charges;
4.Public Works plan review and inspection fees; and
5.Fire, transportation, and parks impact mitigation fees.
Rental Housing:
Sunset Area
R-14 and RMF >8 units
CV >30 units
•100% of fees may be waived for
eligible rental housing projects with
>50% units affordable for incomes
below <60% AMI; or
•50% of the above fees may be waived
for eligible market-rate rental housing.
•No affordability requirement
WAIVED FEES
15 AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
PARTNERSHIPS WITH THE RHA
16 AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
MANUFACTURED HOME PARK ZONING
The RMH Zone is intended to protect established manufactured home parks
and to expand the variety of affordable housing types available within the City.
17 AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
18
HOUSING REPAIR ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
To be eligible one must:
1.Live in the house subject to repairs;
2.own the home for at least the last 12
months; and
3.have a total household adjusted gross
income that is within the following ranges:
Family Size Maximum Annual
Income
1 $50,400
2 $57,600
3 $64,800
4 $72,000
5 $77,800
6 $83,550
7 $89,300
8 $95,050
•2017-2018 annual
budget of $71,805
Minimum and maximum
expenditures per client
per calendar year are
$750 to $4,000 for:
•Safety
•Plumbing
•Electrical
•Heating
•Adaptations for
Disabilities
•Weatherproofing
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
19
REGIONAL COLLABORATION
Regional Affordable Housing Task Force
1.Assess the current state of regional housing affordability in
King County;
2.Develop a statement of intent to address the regional
affordable housing crisis;
3.Identify collective tools and actions that can be taken to
create and preserve more affordable homes;
4.Develop a state legislative strategy to address affordable
housing and homelessness; and
5.Develop a dashboard for displaying region-wide progress in
meeting the Countywide Planning Policies.AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
A.Funding
B.Land Use Tools
C.Tenant Protections
STAFF’S RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES FOR
CITY COUNCIL’S CONSIDERATION
20 AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
1.The Washington State Constitution limits
the total amount of property tax levies to
1% of a property’s true and fair value.
2.Portion for affordable housing may not
exceed $0.50 per $1,000 of assessed
valuation.
3.This money can be put in a local Housing
Trust Fund and leveraged to create and
preserve affordable housing.
REGIONAL AND/OR LOCAL HOUSING LEVY
Highlights:
Allows for flexible use of
funds according to
community need
Supports housing and
services for vulnerable
populations
Dedicated and significant
revenue stream
Target Population: 80% AMI
and below; Often used at
30% AMI and below
•Has the potential to provide a substantial amount of money for affordable
housing that can be leveraged with other funding sources.
•For example, the 2009 Seattle Housing Levy has brought in $145 million which
has funded 10,000 affordable homes for seniors, formerly homeless
individuals and families, and low-to moderate-wage workers, and provided
loans to more than 600 first-time homebuyers and rental assistance to over
4,000 households.
21 AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
1.Well-known for their flexibility, sustainability,
and success in addressing critical housing
needs.
2.Most housing trust funds provide loans and
grants through a competitive application
process.
3.Eligible activities are usually include new
construction, rehabilitation, acquisition,
emergency repairs, accessibility, first time
homeownership, operating and maintenance
costs, and many others.
Highlights:
Flexible use of dedicated
funds
Funding is typically provided
via linkage fees, document
recording fees, inclusionary
zoning in-lieu fees, REET,
hotel/motel taxes, etc.
•Bellingham established the “Home Fund” in 2012, which will collect $21 million
over 7 years.
•In the past four years, the Fund has committed to create 331 units of rental
housing, and seen 106 of these to completion.
•The fund will preserve 136 units, and has seen 114 of these to completion.
22
LOCAL HOUSING TRUST FUND
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
1.Linkage fees require developers to pay a fee,
usually charged per square foot, for new
development.
2.While linkage fees can be adopted for
residential development, commercial linkage
fees are more common.
3.Ideally, the linkage fee rate should be related
to the new need for affordable housing
created by the commercial development.
LINKAGE FEES
Highlights:
No public cost
Limits displacement of low-
income renters caused by
commercial development
Significant funding source
Target Population: Based on
labor market conditions
•While new commercial development creates new jobs, it can also drive up
housing prices.
•Linkage fees are a way to balance out the impacts of new development and
ensure that there is affordable housing within proximity to the new jobs.
23 AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
1.Fee waivers are currently enabled for two
relatively small areas of the City (the
downtown and the Sunset area).
2.By removing the geographic restrictions and
instead basing the waivers on performance
standards would likely result in the production
of more affordable housing units.
3.Reduce the income limits from 60% AMI to 50%
AMI to match Renton’s defined income limits
and also to match the proposed reduction for
MFTE rental limits.
4.Establish a cap of 80% for ownership units,
which would also match our defined income
limits and the proposed amendments to the
MFTE provisions.
CONSIDER EXPANDING FEE WAIVERS
Highlights:
Low technical knowledge
needed to implement
Reduces development cost
24 AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
1.Similar to existing MFTE program, but allows
existing multifamily buildings to dedicate a
portion (e.g., 25-50%) of total units to
affordable housing in exchange for property tax
exemption.
2.Each proposed development may be decided
on a case by case basis depending on factors
such as the quality of the existing housing
units.
3.Properties enrolled in the program would be
regularly inspected to meet minimum health
and quality standards.
4.The program could prevent displacement of
long-time community members in areas that
are gentrifying
PRESERVATION PROPERTY TAX PROGRAM
Highlights:
Similar to existing City of
Renton MFTE
Could prevent
displacement
25
A 2013 study by the
Center for Housing Policy
found that construction
of new subsidized rental
housing costs 25-40%
more than rehabilitating
existing housing.AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES
26
Bellevue increase bldg. coverage by 5%; % of compact stalls increased
by 75%; height bonus; reduced open space.
Tukwila height bonus
Newcastle parking reductions; FAR increase
Redmond one story height increase
Sammamish potential parking reduction, one-story height increase
Shoreline potential parking reduction
Kirkland height bonus
Kenmore lot coverage increase, parking reduction, height increase,
yard reductions, open space reduction AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
1.Inclusionary zoning (IZ) requires or incentivizes
new developments over a certain size to allot a
portion or number of units as affordable housing.
2.Developers can often opt out of building the units
themselves by paying a fee in lieu, which occurs
often with commercial development.
3.Mandatory inclusionary zoning is seen as a more
effective tool for increasing affordable housing
supply as past voluntary programs have shown
meager results.
4.Inclusionary zoning can be tied to incentives such
as up-zones, reduced parking requirements, or
reduced fees and taxes in order to help offset the
cost to developers of providing affordable housing.
5.This tool does not cost the government or typical
taxpayer money and developers benefit from
incentives.
INCLUSIONARY ZONING
Highlights:
No public cost
Flexible program design
Provides incentives for
developers and
promotes affordability
alongside growth
27
Cities with IZ Owner Renter
Federal Way 80%50%
Issaquah 80%70%
Redmond 80%80%
Sammamish 80%80%
Tukwila 80%50%
Kenmore 85%85%
Tacoma 80%50%
Newcastle 80%70%
Kirkland
80%-100%
varies by
zone
50%
Shoreline
Varies from 60-80% AMI
based on number of
bedrooms and subarea
location.AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
The goals of a program may vary, but in general
the following would be appropriate:
1.Create a permanent stock of affordable
housing
2.Reduce the cost of development of
affordable housing
3.Create mixed income neighborhoods
DEVELOPMENT OF SURPLUS OR NPO LAND
Highlights:
Form partnerships with
the RHA and NPOs with
surplus land (e.g.,
churches)
City can control process
and product
Opportunity to create
housing units for
ownership
28 AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
1.Right of First Refusal laws require property
owners to notify tenants, nonprofits, and/or
the city before selling an affordable housing
property in order to give the entity first chance
of purchase.
RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL OR RIGHT TO
PURCHASE Highlights:
Cost-effective
Prevents displacement
Encourages no net-loss
of affordable housing
29
2.Right to Purchase laws go a step further and give tenants, nonprofits, and/or
the city an exclusive chance to purchase the property.
3.Either can be implemented to be triggered by the end of an affordability period
or any sale of affordable property.
Since 1990, San Francisco has required:
•property owners to give the City and tenants 18 months advance notice of intent to
prepay or terminate participation in local, state or federal subsidy programs.
•The City or a designated nonprofit, has exclusive right to purchase the property for
eight months at a “fair return price” which guarantees the owners a minimum of a
10% return on their investment.AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
Recommended next step:
Refer to the Planning & Development
Committee for further analysis and
recommendations.
30 AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY &
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: October 11, 2018
TO: Ed Prince, Council President
Members of Renton City Council
CC: Denis Law, Mayor
Robert Harrison, Chief Administrative Officer
FROM: C.E. “Chip” Vincent, CED Administrator
STAFF CONTACT: Angie Mathias, Long Range Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Safe & Healthy Housing Program
Almost half of the City of Renton’s housing units, about 48%, are rental units, and about
40% of the City’s housing stock was developed 40 or more years ago. To promote a basic
quality of life for rental housing residents and for the economic well-being of the city,
the Community and Economic Development Department (CED) has been considering a
Safe and Healthy Housing Program allowed by the Washington State Landlord-Tenant
Act that would license rental housing like other businesses and certify that rental units
meet property maintenance and related health and safety codes.
In February 2018, the City Council’s Committee of the Whole met to review the progress
of the Renton Safe and Healthy Housing Program. The overall parameters of the
program were agreeable to the Councilmembers present.
CED next steps included:
• Balancing the protection of tenants from retribution and property owners’ rights
• Penalties for non-compliance
• Evaluation of the fee structure to balance revenues with City resource costs
Council questions and comments included:
• What is the level of compliance with Bremerton and Tacoma who have similar
self-certification programs?
• Renton’s proposed rental business license fees should be lower, and there
should be carrots for properties that are properly registered and penalties if not.
Since February, CED staff have coordinated with the City Attorney’s office, Community
Services, and Finance. Additionally, staff had two meetings with the Rental Housing
Association and has briefed the Planning and Development Committee of proposed
changes to the program.
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
Ed Prince, Council President
Page 2 of 3
October 11, 2018
c:\users\jmedzegian\desktop\ced memo to council cc mayor re healthy housing.docx
Balancing Tenant Protection and Property Owners Rights
Staff has proposed that the form property owners will sign certifying their property
meets all the requirements of the Rental Registration Checklist include a Right of Entry
provision. This provision will allow inspectors to enter the property with the consent of
the tenant to determine if the requirements of the checklist are being met. Staff believe
this is the best way to ensure property owners cannot assume a complaint of their
tenants to the City was the reason an inspection occurred. Exterior violations could also
trigger need for an internal inspection. Finally, anonymous calls or emails will be
followed up on and may trigger the need for an internal inspection. All of these
measures should work to ensure adequate protection for tenants.
Penalties
It is recommended that for consistency, penalties would follow the same process as the
penalties already established for Code Enforcement. That process begins with notice to
correct, then financial penalties, and eventually can lead to court proceedings.
Balancing the Fee Structure & Lowering the Fees
The original proposed program required both a business license and the registration of
each rental unit. The current proposal only requires a business license that costs $150
per year with no additional costs to property owners, unless there is a violation. The City
will be required to have a standard business license fee process as of January 2018 per
recent changes to state law. The fees have been adjusted to apply the standard Business
License Fee. The overall level of fees and associated revenue is less than considered in
February 2018. The potential fee revenue compared to expected costs shows a closer
balance. Additionally, the current proposal only requires three new staff positions; a
landlord-tenant specialist/housing planner, code compliance/building inspector, and an
accounting assistant.
Example Programs – Compliance
Neither Bremerton nor Tacoma have formal tracking programs on properties/units in
compliance. However, a 2015 auditor report on Bremerton’s program found that 56% of
the units are licensed and 44% are not. The ways in which Bremerton finds out if a
landlord/property is not licensed includes: review of utility billings (e.g. water), when
landlord license accounts are closed due to property sales, review of Assessor owner
and site address records, and complaints. Similarly, Tacoma finds leads from their Utility
division, through building and land use permit inspections, Assessor records comparing
owner and site addresses. The City then sends a letter to the owner as appropriate.
As a result of the less than full compliance, revenue analysis at 60% compliance is
assumed. This is assuming a modestly more successful Renton program over the case
study examples.
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
Ed Prince, Council President
Page 3 of 3
October 11, 2018
c:\users\jmedzegian\desktop\ced memo to council cc mayor re healthy housing.docx
Summary of Proposed Safe and Healthy Housing Program
Feature Rationale
1 Require business license
registration
Provides notifications to landlords when
emergencies or nuisance complaints arise.
2 Implement a self-
certification program
Streamlined and efficient – most landlords in good
stead.
Focus on problem landlords.
3
Update property
maintenance code
standards
Per National Center for Healthy Housing & King
County.
4
Create a new Landlord-
Tenant/Housing Specialist
position
Provide support, education, and information to
landlords and tenants and coordinate between
multiple departments.
5
Provide enforcement
through Code Compliance
staff
Already enforce other building and property
codes.
6 Limit City inspections
Effectively use Code Compliance staff and follow
Landlord-Tenant Act. Focus on exterior inspections
through complaints. Interior inspections only after
tenants and landlord permission or through court
warrants. Allow use of qualified approved
inspectors.
7 Phase in the program
One-year education and outreach campaign to
landlords and rental housing tenants to build
awareness and encourage compliance.
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)