HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-22-2018 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION (2)City Council Study Session P W C D S FA
October 22, 2018 - 5:30 P M
Council Chambers - City Hall
A GE NDA
Watch the meeting L I V E !
Watch the meeting video
Meeting videos are not available until 72
hours after the meeting has concluded.
I .C A L L TO O R D E R
A .Roll Call
I I .A NNO UNC E ME NT S , R E P O RT S , A ND P R E S E NTAT I O NS
A .A ffordable Housing S outh King Housing & Homelessness Partners (Hinman) (20
Minutes)
I I I .A G E ND A I T E MS F O R C O UNC I L D I S C US S I O N
A .Ordinance No. 6697 (Gross) (5 Minutes)
A n Ordinance of the City Council of the City of A uburn, Washington relating to criminal
offenses, amending Section 9.22.010 of the A uburn City Code
I V.P UB L I C W O R K S A ND C O MMUNI T Y D E V E L O P ME NT D I S C US S I O N I T E MS
A .Vacant Housing Update (Tate) (10 Minutes)
Overview of City's approach to vacant homes in Auburn
B .A ffordable Housing S tock (Tate) (20 Minutes)
Overview of the City's Comprehensive Plan Housing Element and data associated with
affordable housing in A uburn
C.A mendments to Title 5 Business L icensing (Tate) (10 Minutes)
Overview of draft amendments intended to comply with S tate legislation that defines
what it means to engage in business
D.P ayback Code Revisions (Ordinance No. 6696) (Gaub) (15 Minutes)
E .A uburn City Code Chapter 12.64A Half S treet I mprovement Requirements (Gaub) (20
Minutes)
F.Traffic I mpact F ee Update (Gaub) (10 Minutes)
V.O T HE R D I S C US S I O N I T E MS
V I .NE W B US I NE S S
V I I .MAT R I X
A .Matrix
Page 1 of 160
V I I I .A D J O UR NME NT
Agendas and minutes are available to the public at the City Clerk's Office, on the City website
(http://www.auburnwa.gov), and via e-mail. Complete agenda packets are available for review
at the City Clerk's Office.
Page 2 of 160
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Affordable Housing South King Housing & Homelessness
Partners (Hinman) (20 Minutes)
Date:
October 18, 2018
Department:
Administration
Attachments:
No Attachments Av ailable
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
Background Summary:
Marty Kooistra from the Housing Development Consortium and John Howell from Cedar River
Group will be providing a presentation/update on South King Housing and Homelessness
Partners, the creation of a formal interlocal collaboration among South King County
jurisdictions to address our sub-regional affordable housing and homelessness needs
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:Hinman
Meeting Date:October 22, 2018 Item Number:
Page 3 of 160
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Ordinance No. 6697 (Gross) (5 Minutes)
Date:
October 16, 2018
Department:
City Attorney
Attachments:
ORD NO. 6697
Exhibit A
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
City Council adopt Ordinance No. 6697
Background Summary:
On August 20, 2018, Council adopted Ordinance No. 6689. This ordinance amended (in part)
Section 9.22.010 of the Auburn City Code related to controlled substances. However, those
amendments did not include language that reflected the permissible possession of marijuana
under Chapters 69.50 and 69.41A of the Revised Code of Washington. In order to have a
complete reference to state law, staff recommends adoption of these technical corrections.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:Gross
Meeting Date:October 22, 2018 Item Number:
Page 4 of 160
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6697
October 16, 2018
Page 1 of 2
ORDINANCE NO. 6697
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON RELATING TO
CRIMINAL OFFENSES, AMENDING SECTION
9.22.010 OF THE AUBURN CITY CODE
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 6689 on August 20,
2018, which amended (in part) Section 9.22.010 of the Auburn City Code related
to controlled substances; and,
WHEREAS, those amendments did not include language related to the
permissible possession of marijuana under Chapters 69.50 and 69.41A of the
Revised Code of Washington; and,
WHEREAS, staff recommends adoption of these technical corrections to
make the City’s ordinance consistent with state law.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN as follows:
Section 1. Amendment to City Code. Section 9.22.010 of the
Auburn City Code is amended to read as shown in Exhibit A.
Section 2. Implementation. The Mayor is authorized to implement
such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of
this legislation.
Section 3. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are
declared to be separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence,
paragraph, subdivision, section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the
application thereof to any person or circumstance shall not affect the validity of the
Page 5 of 160
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6697
October 16, 2018
Page 2 of 2
remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or
circumstances.
Section 4. Effective date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be
in force five days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided
by law.
INTRODUCED: ___________________
PASSED: ________________________
APPROVED: _____________________
________________________________
NANCY BACKUS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________________
Shawn Campbell, MMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Steven L. Gross, City Attorney
Published: _________________
Page 6 of 160
Exhibit A
9.22.010 Controlled substances prohibited.
A. Restrictions on marijuana.
1. Except as otherwise authorized by United States Code (USC) Title 21, RCW 69.50, or RCW
69.51A, it is unlawful for any person to knowingly grow, manufacture, process, deliver, or sell
marijuana.
2. Except as otherwise authorized by RCW 69.50 or RCW 69.51A, it is unlawful for any person
aged 21 or older to knowingly possess marijuana in an amount that violates RCW 69.50.4013(3).
3. Except as otherwise authorized by RCW 69.50 or RCW 69.51A, it is unlawful for any person
under age 21 to knowingly possess marijuana in any amount.
4. “Marijuana,” also known as “marihuana,” means all parts of the plant genus Cannabis and all
of its species, subspecies, taxa and hybridizations, whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the
resins extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative,
mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin, and includes all marijuana concentrates,
useable marijuana, and marijuana-infused products. Such term does not include the mature stalks
of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any
other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks
(except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant
which is incapable of germination.
B. It is unlawful for any person to knowingly possess a controlled substance other than
marijuana as defined by RCW 69.50.101(f) unless the substance was obtained directly from, or
pursuant to, a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of his or her
professional practice.
C. It is unlawful for any person to knowingly possess a legend drug in violation of RCW 69.41.
D. Penalties.
1. Violation of subsection A of this section is a misdemeanor. For a first offense, the maximum
penalty shall be 90 days in jail and/or a $1,000 fine. For a second or subsequent offense, the
maximum penalty shall be 180 days in jail and/or a $2,000 fine. For a first offense, there shall be
Page 7 of 160
Exhibit A
a mandatory minimum penalty of 1 day in jail and a $250 fine. For a second or subsequent
offense, there shall be a mandatory minimum penalty of 1 day in jail and a $500 fine.
2. Violation of subsection B of this section is a gross misdemeanor punishable by up to 364 days
in jail and/or a $5,000 fine.
3. Violation of subsection C of this section is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days in jail
and/or a $1,000 fine.
(Ord. 6595 § 4, 2016; Ord. 6525 § 4, 2014; Ord. 6300 § 1, 2010; Ord. 5682 § 1, 2002.)
Page 8 of 160
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Vacant Housing Update (Tate) (10 Minutes)
Date:
October 15, 2018
Department:
Community Development
Attachments:
Vacant Hous ing PowerPoint
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
Background Summary:
Please see the attached PowerPoint Presentation.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:Tate
Meeting Date:October 22, 2018 Item Number:
Page 9 of 160
AUBURNVALUESSERVICEENVIRONMENTECONOMYCHARACTERSUSTAINABILITYWELLNESSCELEBRATIONVACANT PROPERTY REGISTRATIONCHRIS BARACKLEAD COMPLIANCE OFFICERCITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSIONOCTOBER 22, 2018Department of Community DevelopmentPlanning Building Development EngineeringPermit Center Code Enforcement ●EnvironmentalPage 10 of 160
SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATIONAUBURN CITY CODE 15.20PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODEACC 15.20.080 Vacant property registration A. The vacant property registration program is hereby established. All vacant properties shall be registered with the city when it remains vacant for more than 30 days. Failure to register a vacant property shall constitute a violation that is punishable under the terms and procedures of Chapter 1.25 ACC. This section shall not apply to properties that are the subject of a current rental business license issued pursuant to Chapter 5.22 ACC or are inhabited by the property owner part-time.In August 2016, City Council adopted new chapters of ACC title 15 pertaining to property maintenance. These new chapters of City code required a new process for registering vacant properties.Page 11 of 160
SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATIONBENEFITS TO THE COMMUNITY•With this new registration in place, it will allow the City at a quick glance to see which properties are vacant and to help monitor them. •The Code Compliance team will conduct routine inspections of the registered properties to ensure they remain violation free. •This will also help ease the minds of the adjacent property owners, knowing the City is monitoring the properties on a regular basis.•The requirement pressures the bank/preservation companies to disclose all contact information to the City, even if there are no other code violations on the property. •If the bank/preservation companies ignore the requirements, or will not engage with the City, we will use our authority and abate the property.Page 12 of 160
SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATIONJORDAN V. NATIONSTARHOUSE BILL 2057In 2015, Jordan v. Nationstar (now Mr. Cooper) changed the way some Property Preservation companies approached properties in Washington State. Because of the decision of the case, Property Preservation companies took a hands off approach to vacant properties. Their hands off approach made it difficult to obtain compliance. In most cases, properties incurred penalties and the violations were resolved through abatements.In March, 2018, the State of Washington House of Representatives approved House Bill 2057 (HB2057). With the approval, it will allow banks and Property Preservation companies to “preserve” properties. This would include:•Abating identified nuisances;•Installing missing/broken locks on exterior doors;•Replacing or boarding broken or missing windows;•Winterizing homes;•Eliminating building or other code violations;•Securing exterior pools and spas;•Performing routine yard maintenance; and•Performing pest and insect control Page 13 of 160
SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATIONPROPERTY REQUIREMENTSB. In addition to registration, vacant properties shall be managed as follows:1. The property must be kept free of code violations.2. The structure and property must remain secure from unauthorized access. All doors and windows must be in place and remain locked. Broken doors and windows must be repaired or replaced consistent with all provisions of this title.3. The roof, flashing, rain gutters, and down spouts must be present and functional.4. Exterior lighting, consistent with the requirements of this code, shall remain functional and shall be set on a timer to provide nighttime illumination. Battery powered or solar lighting options may be utilized.5. Water service shall be disconnected.6. All vegetation shall be maintained consistent with Auburn City Code. Additionally, shrubs, ground covers, vines, and trees must be kept trimmed and not encroach into the public right-of-way or onto neighboring properties.Page 14 of 160
SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATIONPROPERTY REQUIREMENTS CONTINUED7. The exterior appearance of all structures shall be kept clean and in good condition, consistent with Section 304 of the International Property Maintenance Code. Tarps are not allowed as a means of securing or screening damaged, degraded or moss covered roofs, doors, windows or walls, except as a temporary measure prior to a permanent repair or replacement.8. Appropriate winterization measures shall be taken to ensure that the structure and property is not further degraded due to extended periods of cold and/or wet weather.9. Gas, electrical, and plumbing fixtures shall be maintained in a condition that is safe and that avoids risk to public health and safety.10. A notice shall be placed in a visible location on the property that indicates who the property is registered to and must include contact information for the responsible party.11. The property must be registered with the City of Auburn Police Department trespass program.Page 15 of 160
SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATIONONLINE REGISTRATION FORMSwww.auburnwa.gov/vacantPage 16 of 160
SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATIONOUR PROCESS•Once an application is received, a record is opened in TRAKiT (CRW) and all contact/owner information is entered•Code Enforcement and Auburn Police CRT conduct a site visit to verify compliance with vacant property requirements (vacant property affidavit)•For properties not meeting all of the requirements, a code violation case is opened and the owner/preservation company is contacted for corrections•No Trespassing sign and Vacant Property sticker are posted on property•Properties must be registered every January 1st(registration valid January 1 – December 31)18-0001Page 17 of 160
SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATIONVACANT VS MAINTAINEDPage 18 of 160
THANK YOU!!QUESTIONS??Department of Community DevelopmentPlanning Building Development EngineeringPermit Center Code Enforcement ●EnvironmentalAUBURNVALUESSERVICEENVIRONMENTECONOMYCHARACTERSUSTAINABILITYWELLNESSCELEBRATIONPage 19 of 160
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Affordable Housing Stock (Tate) (20 Minutes)
Date:
October 15, 2018
Department:
Community Development
Attachments:
Attachment A - Appendix B
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
Background Summary:
In recent months, a few City Councilmembers have asked City staff if there is data that
inventories affordable housing in Auburn. Because affordable housing is defined in many
ways and the inventory is constantly changing it is difficult to provide exact inventory figures.
The following are factors that make affordability difficult to define, identify, and quantify:
Affordability is defined or categorized in many different ways. Rental vs. ownership;
serving a population that is below 80% of the average median income (AMI) or 50% or
30%; publicly owned/operated vs. privately owned.
Some private properties establish rental rates based on fair market but are more
accepting of government housing vouchers for rental payment. Therefore, these
properties or dwelling units appear as market rate units but are still contributing to the
provision of affordable housing.
There are non-profit organizations that provide affordable housing yet they do not
necessarily show up within the inventory data.
Inventory is fluid and constantly changing. For example, King County may provide
2,000 housing vouchers to residents within Auburn one year and then 2,100 or 1,900
the following year. Additionally, a 100 unit multifamily property may have 30 tenants
paying rent with a housing voucher one year and 25 or 35 the next year. This is
because tenants move in and move out as time goes on.
Affordability is also relative to the surrounding region. What is affordable in Auburn is
different than what is affordable in Seattle. Most of Auburn is affordable relative to the
cost of housing in Seattle. Auburn may be expensive compared to other parts of the
nation.
Recognizing the above limitations, there are data sources that can help explain affordable
housing in Auburn. For example, Appendix B of the Comprehensive Plan (Housing Element
Needs and Characteristics Assessment), and adopted by City Council in December of 2015,
Page 20 of 160
provides a great starting point to understand the overall profile of housing in the City of
Auburn (Attachment A). This very data rich document provides a great deal of information
related to housing quality/age/condition, housing attainability, household economics,
Page 37 of Appendix B of the Assessment provides a good starting point to help understand
affordability and attainability of housing in Auburn. This section provides data on income in
Auburn and how it compares to King County and Pierce County. Note that in this section, and
the sections that follow, there are a number of tables that break households into categories of
Area Median Income (AMI), Moderate (80% of AMI), Low (50% of AMI), and Very Low
Income (30% of AMI). As indicated in Exhibit 39 on page 38 of the Assessment, the King
County countywide AMI was $88,200 (in 2014 dollars as determined by HUD), the King
County countywide AMI was $71,175 (in 2012 dollars as determined by the American
Community Survey), and the Auburn AMI was $54,329 (in 2012 dollars). Understanding the
data is important because determining 80%, 50% and 30% yields a different outcome
depending upon the data source and the geography of the data.
The above figures are adjusted on an annual basis as the average median income changes
within the region. The King County Housing Authority provides the following table on their
webpage, which is useful not only because it utilizes 2018 dollars, but it also considers
household size as a variant in determining household income:
Family Size 30%AMI 80%AM I
1 $22,500 $56,200
2 $25,700 $64,200
3 $28,900 $72,250
4 $32,100 $80,250
5 $34,700 $86,700
6 $37,250 $93,100
7 $39,850 $99,550
8 $42,400 $105,950
9 $46,560 $112,350
10 $50,740 $118,750
Why establish these types of categories? In part, this is a common structure that is used by
all cities in King County and that are identified in the King County Countywide Planning
Policies. These categories are used to establish metrics that can help establish and monitor
affordable housing goals.
Page 21 of 160
INVENT ORY INFORMAT ION
As indicated at Exhibit 42 on page 40 of the Assessment there are approximately 3,199
renting households that fall into the Very Low Income category (<30% of AMI). However,
there are only about 769 available dwelling units to serve this population. This has two
meanings: (1) that there is a shortfall of 2,430 dwelling units to serve this population, and (2)
that there are 2,430 households that are “rent burdened” (households that are paying more
than 30% of their income to rent). Exhibit 42 also indicates that there are approximately 2,729
renting households that fall into the Low Income category (30% to 50% of AMI), however
there are 3,330 dwelling units to serve this population. In other words, there is a surplus of
601 dwelling units to serve this population. Likewise, there is a surplus of dwelling units to
serve the Moderate Income category (50% to 80% of AMI). There are 2,292 renting
households in this category and a supply of 5,405 dwelling units. Page 40 of the
Assessment is an important summary that helps describe housing supply and housing
demand.
Page 41 provides a table (Exhibit 43) that itemizes the number of properties that are Housing
Authority Subsidized Rental Units and any populations that those properties may directly
serve. Units owned and operated by the Housing Authority are an important part of the
solution when it comes to filling housing availability gaps for those who struggle to afford the
cost. As indicated in this table, there were 2,339 units at the time that the Assessment was
published. Additional units have been added since this Assessment was conducted.
Not contained within the report, but made available to the City by the King County Housing
Authority, is the total number of housing vouchers that are provided to recipients within
Auburn. KCHA has indicated that there are 1,142 voucher holders in Auburn. This figure
represents single family, duplex, triplex, fourplex, and multifamily housing types. It is
important to understand that many private property owners accept these forms of payment
even though their property is not specifically categorized as affordable housing. They are
privately owned properties participating in affordable housing programs. For example, at the
recently developed 294 unit Promenade Apartment complex on Lea Hill, there are 73
recipients of voucher housing.
In addition to publicly issued housing vouchers there are other private properties that
participate in the provision of affordable housing be controlling rent prices. What is the
motivation for a private property owner to limit rental rates? Washington State law includes a
number of financial incentives for the creation and preservation of affordable housing. Many
of these incentives are administered by the Washington State Housing Finance Commission
and the financial programs that have been made available under state and federal law.
Financial programs offer tax credits, tax exempt bond financing, low interest financing, and
land acquisition opportunities. According to the Washington State Housing Finance
Commission there are 1,965 privately owned multifamily dwelling units in Auburn that have
received some form of public financing benefit in order to serve affordable housing
objectives. Here are a few examples:
At the newly constructed 295 unit Villas complex, rent-restricted housing is provided for
residents whose income does not exceed a maximum allowable amount for their
Page 22 of 160
household. They structure rental rates differently for households that are earning less
than 60% AMI and households that are earning 50% of AMI or less.
At the newly constructed 297 units Reserve complex (a 55+ community) tenants are
only qualified if they earn 60% of AMI or less.
At the newly constructed Estates at Hillside Garden (a 55+ community) there are
income qualifications tenants must meet that document that they are at 60% AMI.
Additionally, there are a number of non-profit organizations that either own and provide
housing to income qualified populations or that provide financial assistance for rental
payments. The number of dwelling units or households that benefit from these resources is
difficult to quantify but likely does not exceed 100 dwelling units community wide. Examples
include Nexus (formally Auburn Youth Resources), Valley Cities, Mary’s Place, Catholic
Community Services, and Terry Home.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Other: Planning
Councilmember:Staff:Tate
Meeting Date:October 22, 2018 Item Number:
Page 23 of 160
DRAFT
Housing Needs & Characteristics Assessment
and
Summary of Community Outreach Objectives & Activities
October 2014
Prepared by:
Page 24 of 160
Page 25 of 160
Draft: October 31, 2014 1
AUBURN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Part I. Housing Needs & Characteristics Assessment
ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT
A housing element is a plan that addresses a community’s current and projected needs for housing,
including housing variety, attainability, and preservation. This document is intended to provide an
assessment of housing needs and characteristics to support Auburn’s Housing Element Update as part of
the City’s effort to update its Comprehensive Plan. This report also meets the requirements of the
Countywide Planning Policies for King County (2012) to assess housing needs and conditions in order to
help meet the countywide need for housing as well as the City’s specific needs.
The report is structured in three parts:
Population and Community Characteristics
Household Economics
Housing Inventory and Affordability
The conditions report draws on publically available data from the following sources:
U.S. Census Bureau
Decennial Census
American Community Survey (5-year estimates)
Federal Agencies
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Washington State Agencies
Washington State Office of Financial Management
The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction
County and Regional Agencies
King County Assessor’s Office
Puget Sound Regional Council
Public Health of Seattle/King County
Seattle/King County Coalition on Homelessness
Other
Dupre and Scott
Zillow.com
Qualitative information about housing and livability conditions based on community outreach is also
considered in the housing element update, and can be found in Part II of this document.
Page 26 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
About this Document .................................................................................................................................... 1
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 2
Table of Exhibits ............................................................................................................................................ 3
1.0 POPULATION AND COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................................ 5
Auburn Population and Community Characteristics ................................................................................ 5
Population by Age ..................................................................................................................................... 7
Household Size .......................................................................................................................................... 8
Racial Composition.................................................................................................................................... 9
Languages Spoken at Home .................................................................................................................... 10
Population Living with a Disability .......................................................................................................... 11
2.0 HOUSEHOLD ECONOMICS ............................................................................................................... 13
Household Income .................................................................................................................................. 13
Food stamps/SNAP ................................................................................................................................. 14
Median Household Income by Size Estimates ........................................................................................ 15
Homeless Population .......................................................................................................................... 16
Employment & Labor Force Participation ........................................................................................... 18
Housing Cost Burden ............................................................................................................................... 18
Housing and Transportation Costs ...................................................................................................... 19
3.0 HOUSING INVENTORY AND AFFORDABILITY................................................................................... 22
Housing Units .......................................................................................................................................... 23
Housing Types and Sizes ......................................................................................................................... 24
Tenure ..................................................................................................................................................... 24
Vacancy Rates ......................................................................................................................................... 25
Housing Units by Year Built ..................................................................................................................... 26
Housing Condition and Quality ............................................................................................................... 27
Code Enforcement .............................................................................................................................. 35
Neighborhoods with Unique Housing Conditions or Amenities ............................................................. 35
Downtown ........................................................................................................................................... 35
North Auburn ...................................................................................................................................... 35
South Auburn ...................................................................................................................................... 35
West Hill .............................................................................................................................................. 36
Lea Hill ................................................................................................................................................. 36
Plateau ................................................................................................................................................ 36
Lakeland .............................................................................................................................................. 36
Page 27 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 3
Southeast Auburn ............................................................................................................................... 36
Capacity for Additional Housing ............................................................................................................. 36
Housing Attainability ............................................................................................................................... 37
Estimating Households by Percent of Median Income ....................................................................... 38
Affordability of Renter Occupied Housing .......................................................................................... 39
Overcrowding ...................................................................................................................................... 45
Affordability of Owner Occupied Housing .......................................................................................... 45
TABLE OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 Population Growth Rate Comparison ............................................................................................ 5
Exhibit 2 Population Density ......................................................................................................................... 6
Exhibit 3 Auburn, King, and Pierce County Broad Age Category Distributions, 2010 ................................... 7
Exhibit 4 Auburn Age Distribution, 2010 ...................................................................................................... 7
Exhibit 5 Average Household Size: Auburn, King County, and Pierce County .............................................. 8
Exhibit 6 Household Size: Auburn, King County, and Pierce County ............................................................ 8
Exhibit 7 Household Composition: Auburn, King County, and Pierce County .............................................. 9
Exhibit 8 Racial Composition, 2012 ............................................................................................................... 9
Exhibit 9 Languages Spoken at Home in Auburn, 2008-2012 5-Year Average ........................................... 10
Exhibit 10 Languages Spoken at Home in Auburn, King County, and Pierce County 2008-2012 5-Year
Average ....................................................................................................................................................... 11
Exhibit 11 Auburn, King County, Pierce County Population Living with a Disability .................................. 11
Exhibit 12 Auburn’s Estimated Population Living with a Disability ............................................................ 12
Exhibit 13 Median Household Income, 2012 Estimate ............................................................................... 13
Exhibit 14 Household Income Segmentation, 2012 .................................................................................... 14
Exhibit 15 Median Household Income by Household Size .......................................................................... 15
Exhibit 16. Median Household Income by Household Size ........................................................................ 16
Exhibit 17 Auburn Unsheltered Homeless Counts, 2010 – 2014 ................................................................ 17
Exhibit 18 Homeless Students in Auburn and Washington State, 2012-2013 School Year ........................ 17
Exhibit 19 Labor Force Participation and Unemployment Rate for Civilians 16+ Years Old, 2008 -2012 5-
Year Average ............................................................................................................................................... 18
Exhibit 20 Percent of Auburn Households Spending More than 30% of Income on Housing, 2008-2012 5-
Year Average ............................................................................................................................................... 18
Exhibit 21 Number of HH Spending More than 30% of Income on Housing (2008-2012) 5-Year Average19
Exhibit 22 Means of Transportation to Work, 2008-2012 5-Year Estimates .............................................. 19
Exhibit 23 Travel Time to Work, 2012 Estimates ........................................................................................ 20
Exhibit 24 Housing Costs Compared to Housing + Transportation Costs ................................................... 21
Exhibit 25 South King County Transit Opportunity Map [this is 2011 information; determine value of
map in 2014] ............................................................................................................................................... 22
Exhibit 26 2014 Housing Unit Estimates ..................................................................................................... 23
Page 28 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 4
Exhibit 27 Housing Unit Estimates 2010 - 2014 .......................................................................................... 23
Exhibit 28 Number of Bedrooms................................................................................................................. 24
Exhibit 29 Housing Tenure .......................................................................................................................... 24
Exhibit 30 Vacancy Rates ............................................................................................................................ 25
Exhibit 31 Residential Housing by Date Built in Auburn ............................................................................. 26
Exhibit 32 Residential Building Condition and Mobile Homes in Auburn ................................................... 28
Exhibit 33 Residential Assessed Improvement Value per Square Foot ...................................................... 30
Exhibit 34 Assessed Improvement Value per Square Foot ......................................................................... 31
Exhibit 35 Land Value per Lot Square Foot ................................................................................................. 32
Exhibit 36 Assessed Value of Land per Lot Square Foot – Histogram ......................................................... 33
Exhibit 37 Residential Land with Low Building to Land Value Ratios ......................................................... 34
Exhibit 38 Land Capacity and Growth Target .............................................................................................. 37
Exhibit 39 Income Ranges and Area Median Income ................................................................................. 38
Exhibit 40 Household Estimates by Percentage Median Income, 2012 dollars.......................................... 38
Exhibit 41 Income Levels and Renter Households ...................................................................................... 39
Exhibit 42 Auburn Renter-Occupied Income and Current Rents ................................................................ 40
Exhibit 43 Housing Authority Subsidized Rental Units ............................................................................... 41
Exhibit 44 Auburn Gross Rent by Bedroom ................................................................................................ 42
Exhibit 45 Auburn Apartment Rents and Vacancy Rates ............................................................................ 43
Exhibit 46 Current and Fair Market Rents in Auburn and King County ...................................................... 44
Exhibit 47 Gross Rent by Bedroom ............................................................................................................. 44
Exhibit 48 Percentage of Rental Units that are Overcrowded, 2008-2012 5-Year Average ....................... 45
Exhibit 49 Household Estimates of Owners by Percent of Median Income ............................................... 45
Exhibit 50 Auburn Median Sales Prices ....................................................................................................... 46
Exhibit 51 Annual Income Needed to Purchase a Home at Current Median Selling Price, 2013 ............... 47
Page 29 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 5
1.0 POPULATION AND COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS
This section describes who lives in Auburn, including total population, age distribution, household size,
racial and ethnic composition, and languages spoken at home. This information allows the City an
understanding of who the City serves and whether some persons have special housing needs.
Auburn Population and Community Characteristics
Exhibit 1
Population Growth Rate Comparison
2010
Population
Census
2011
Population
Estimate
2012
Population
Estimate
2013
Population
Estimate
2014
Population
Estimate
Compound
Annual
Growth
Rate
Auburn 70,180 70,705 71,240 73,235 74,630 2%
King County 1,931,249 1,942,600 1,957,000 1,981,900 2,017,250 1%
Pierce County 795,225 802,150 808,200 814,500 821,300 1%
Source: OFM Forecasting Division, 2014
As of 2014, about 74,630 residents live in the City of Auburn.
Auburn’s population is growing faster than King County and Pierce County. Auburn’s compound
annual growth rate of 2% between 2010 and 2014 is twice as high as both King and Pierce County’s
compound annual growth rate of 1% in the same years.
Page 30 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 6
Exhibit 2
Population Density
Source: US Census 2010 Bock Groups, City of Auburn 2014
Population density is generally between 3-10 persons per acre across the City with greater nodes of
density in North Auburn, South Auburn, Lea Hill and Lakeland Hills where there are smaller lot single
family homes and attached housing.
Page 31 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 7
Population by Age
Based on the 2010 Census, the last universal assessment of population structure, Auburn’s population
under 20 years old was 20,485, or 29.2% of the total population, and the senior population (ages 65
years and over) was 7,138, or 10.2% of the total population.
Exhibit 3 compares Auburn to King County and Pierce County averages using broad age categories.
Exhibit 3
Auburn, King, and Pierce County Broad Age Category Distributions, 2010
Under 20
Years
20 - 64
Years
65 Years and
Over
Auburn 29.2% 60.6% 10.2%
King County 23.9% 65.2% 10.9%
Pierce County 27.7% 61.2% 11.0%
Source: US Census, 2010.
Auburn has a higher percentage of residents under 20 years old than both King and Pierce County
averages, a lower percentage of residents between 20-64 years old compared to both counties, and
a lower percentage of residents over 65 years old compared to both counties, but the differences
are not substantial.
Exhibit 4
Auburn Age Distribution, 2010
Source: US Census, 2010.
5,201
4,850
5,003
5,431
5,126
5,251
4,750
4,630
4,906
5,390
5,057
4,175
3,272
2,234
1,651
1,350
988
622
293
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
Under 5 years
5 to 9 years
10 to 14 years
15 to 19 years
20 to 24 years
25 to 29 years
30 to 34 years
35 to 39 years
40 to 44 years
45 to 49 years
50 to 54 years
55 to 59 years
60 to 64 years
65 to 69 years
70 to 74 years
75 to 79 years
80 to 84 years
85 to 89 years
90 years and over
Page 32 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 8
There will be a large portion of the population that will be 65 and over by 2035. Currently, 45-59
year olds make up about 15% of Auburn’s total population. They will be part of the senior
population by 2035.
Household Size
Exhibit 5
Average Household Size: Auburn, King County, and Pierce County
Average
Household Size
Average Family
Size
Auburn 2.67 3.22
King County 2.40 3.05
Pierce County 2.59 3.09
Source: US Census, 2010.
According to US Census data from 2010, Auburn has an average household size of 2.67 persons.
This is larger compared to King County which has an average household size of 2.40 persons, and
larger than Pierce County which has an average household size of 2.59 persons.
Exhibit 6
Household Size: Auburn, King County, and Pierce County
Household Size Auburn King Pierce
1-person household 27% 32% 27%
2-person household 33% 33% 34%
3-person household 17% 15% 16%
4-person household 14% 13% 14%
5-person household 5% 5% 6%
6-person household 3% 2% 2%
7-or-more person household 1% 1% 1%
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
Auburn has a slightly smaller percentage of 1-person households than King County households (27%
in Auburn, 32% in King County).
Auburn has slightly larger percentages of family households with three persons and larger compared
to King County, but is similar to the Pierce County averages for these household sizes
Page 33 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 9
Exhibit 7
Household Composition: Auburn, King County, and Pierce County
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
Fifty-three percent of the households are one or two persons with no kids. The type of homes
needed for smaller households may be different than for larger households.
In general, Auburn’s household composition is similar to both King and Pierce Counties.
Auburn has a slightly larger percentage of single parents with children households (12%) compared
to King County (7%) and Pierce County (10%).
Racial Composition
Exhibit 8
Racial Composition, 2012
Auburn King
County
Pierce
County
White alone 70% 68% 76%
Black or African American alone 6% 6% 7%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 1% 2% 1%
Asian alone 15% 10% 6%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 1% 1% 1%
Some other race alone 3% 5% 2%
Two or more races 5% 7% 7%
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
According to ACS data from 2012, Auburn is slightly less diverse than King County overall, and
somewhat more diverse than Pierce County overall, with 30% of its population being races other
than white compared to 32% in King County and 24% in Pierce County.
21% 22% 20%
25% 29% 26%
7%
10%
12%
32%
26% 27%
16% 13% 16%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
King Pierce Auburn
Other Households
Living Alone
Single Parent, Children
Married, No Children
Married, Children
Page 34 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 10
About 15% of Auburn’s population identifies as Asian. This is higher compared to King (10%) and
Pierce (6%) Counties. Within this category, the population consists of Filipino (2.1%), Korean (1.5%),
Vietnamese (1.3%), Asian Indian (1.3%), Other Asian (1.3%), Chinese (1%) and Japanese (.5%).
Auburn‘s American Indian and Native Alaskan is 2%, compared to 1% in King County and 1% in
Pierce County.
Auburn has a higher “Some Other Race” population (5%), compared to 3% in King County and 2% in
Pierce County. Auburn also has a slightly higher mixed race population (7%), compared to 5% in
King County, but similar to Pierce County.
Languages Spoken at Home
Exhibit 9
Languages Spoken at Home in Auburn, 2008-2012 5-Year Average
Language Spoken at Home
Persons
Age 5+
years % of Total
% of Group
Without
English
Proficiency
Speak only English 48,919 75% --
Spanish or Spanish Creole 5,928 9% 48%
Other Indo-European languages 4,385 7% 44%
Asian and Pacific Island languages 5,245 8% 42%
Other languages 943 1% 32%
Total 65,400 100% 11%
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Approximately 25% of Auburn residents speak a language other than English. This is similar to King
County (25%) and higher than Pierce County (14%). Spanish (9%), Asian and Pacific Island languages
(8%), and other Indo-European languages (7%) are the most common languages spoken other than
English.
75%
9%
7%
8%
1%
Page 35 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 11
Exhibit 10
Languages Spoken at Home in Auburn, King County, and Pierce County
2008-2012 5-Year Average
Auburn King County Pierce County
Language Spoken at Home % of Total
% of Group
Without English
Proficiency
% of
Total
% of Group
Without English
Proficiency
% of
Total
% of Group
Without
English
Proficiency
Speak only English 75% -- 75% -- 86% --
Speak a language other than
English
25% 44% 25% 43% 14% 40%
Spanish or Spanish Creole 9% 48% 7% 46% 6% 37%
Other Indo-European
languages
7% 44% 6% 31% 3% 34%
Asian and Pacific Island
languages
8% 42% 11% 47% 5% 45%
Other languages 1% 32% 2% 44% 1% 38%
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
Of the population who speak a language other than English, approximately 44% speak English “less
than well”. This is slightly higher than in King County (43%) and Pierce County (40%).
Among Auburn’s Spanish speaking population, nearly half of the group is not proficient in English
(48%). Among Auburn’s population that speaks other Indo-European languages, 44% are not
proficient in English. Among Auburn’s population that speaks Asian and Pacific Island languages,
42% are not proficient in English.
Population Living with a Disability
Exhibit 11 compares Auburn, King County and Pierce County populations living with a disability. Exhibit
12 shows characteristics about Auburn’s population living with a disability.
Exhibit 11
Auburn, King County, Pierce County Population Living with a Disability
Total civilian non-
institutionalized
population
With
Disability
% of Total
Auburn 69,958 9,221 13.2%
King County 1,927,850 177,577 9.2%
Pierce County 770,973 97,178 12.6%
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
Page 36 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 12
Exhibit 12
Auburn’s Estimated Population Living with a Disability
Total
With a
disability
Percent
with a
disability
Total civilian non-institutionalized
population
69,958 9,221 13.2%
Population 5 to 17 years 12,639 505 4.0%
With a hearing difficulty (X) 70 0.6%
With a vision difficulty (X) 140 1.1%
With a cognitive difficulty (X) 304 2.4%
With an ambulatory difficulty (X) 89 0.7%
With a self-care difficulty (X) 108 0.9%
Population 18 to 64 years 44,740 5,527 12.4%
With a hearing difficulty (X) 1,265 2.8%
With a vision difficulty (X) 844 1.9%
With a cognitive difficulty (X) 2,504 5.6%
With an ambulatory difficulty (X) 2,494 5.6%
With a self-care difficulty (X) 910 2.0%
With an independent living difficult (X) 2,028 4.5%
Population 65 years and over 7,682 3,189 41.5%
With a hearing difficulty (X) 1,306 17.0%
With a vision difficulty (X) 494 6.4%
With a cognitive difficulty (X) 716 9.3%
With an ambulatory difficulty (X) 2,015 26.2%
With a self-care difficulty (X) 793 10.3%
With an independent living difficulty (X) 1,256 16.3%
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
Approximately 13.2% of Auburn’s total population is living with a disability. This is higher compared
to King County (9.2%) and slightly higher than Pierce County (12.6%).
About 12% of the adult population ages 18 to 64 are living with a disability. The most prevalent
disabilities include cognitive difficulty (5.6%) and ambulatory difficulty (difficulty walking around) at
5.6%.
Page 37 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 13
2.0 HOUSEHOLD ECONOMICS
This section examines household incomes, and households’ ability to provide for food, shelter, and
transportation. It helps us estimate what portion of the population does not have the resources
necessary to meet basic needs, as well as where assistance may be most beneficial.
Household Income
Exhibit 13 compares median household income for King County, Pierce County, and Auburn, and Exhibit
14 shows the segmentation of household income for Auburn and the two counties. The data reflect
income for all households regardless of size.
Exhibit 13
Median Household Income, 2012 Estimate
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
Auburn’s median household income is lower than both King County’s and Pierce County’s median
household income.
$71,175
$59,105
$54,329
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
King County Pierce County Auburn
Page 38 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 14
Exhibit 14
Household Income Segmentation, 2012
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Auburn is more similar to Pierce County in household income segmentation than it is to King County.
45% of households in Auburn earn less than $50,000 per year, compared to 43% in Pierce County
and 37% in King County.
The American Community Survey indicates the percent of Auburn persons below the poverty level
(2008-2012 ACS) was 14.9%. This is higher than Pierce County (11.9%) and higher than King County
(10.9%).
Food stamps/SNAP
Approximately 19% of households in Auburn receive food stamps. This is higher compared to the
percentage of households receiving food stamps in King and Pierce Counties, where 9% of
households in King County receive food stamps, and 13% of households in Pierce County receive
food stamps.
6%
4%
7%
8%
12%
17%
13%
18%
8%
9%
6%
4%
9%
10%
14%
21%
14%
15%
5%
3%
6%
4%
10%
11%
14%
19%
14%
15%
4%
3%
0%5%10%15%20%25%
Less than $10,000
$10,000 to $14,999
$15,000 to $24,999
$25,000 to $34,999
$35,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$75,000 to $99,999
$100,000 to $149,999
$150,000 to $199,999
$200,000 or more
Auburn Pierce King
Page 39 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 15
Approximately 55% of households in Auburn receiving food stamps have children under 18 years.
This is higher compared with King County, where 44% of households receiving food stamps have
children under 18, and slightly higher compared with Pierce County, where 52% of households
receiving food stamps have children under 18 years.
17% of households receiving food stamps in Auburn identify as being Hispanic or of Latino origin.
This is slightly higher compared to King County (12%) and Pierce County (11%). 6% of households
receiving food stamps in Auburn identify as “some other race”. This is slightly higher compared to
King County (4%) and Pierce County (3%).
35% of households receiving food stamps in Auburn have had 2 or more workers in the past 12
months. This is slightly higher compared to King County (34%) and Pierce County (31%).
According to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction Washington State Report Card May
2014 data, 54.3% of the Auburn School District student population are eligible for Free or Reduced-
Price meals. This is nearly 10 percentage points higher than the Washington State average (45.9%).
Median Household Income by Size Estimates
Exhibit 15
Median Household Income by Household Size
Auburn King
County
Pierce
County
Average Median Income: $54,329 $71,175 $59,105
1-person households $32,986 $40,023 $33,376
2-person households $61,189 $81,907 $65,531
3-person households $68,250 $95,350 $72,180
4-person households $83,782 $108,946 $81,277
5-person households $62,900 $102,121 $74,237
6-person households $71,453 $82,179 $72,851
7-or-more-person households $79,224 $85,539 $70,487
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
Page 40 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 16
Exhibit 16.
Median Household Income by Household Size
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
The median household income for single person households is similar for Auburn ($32,986) and
Pierce County ($33,376). It is lower compared to King County ($40,023).
Auburn’s median income for households with two or more people is below the King County median,
but is similar to the Pierce County median.
Homeless Population
Estimating the total homeless population is difficult. In King County, a 2014 one-night analysis of
homelessness in King County found that 3,123 were outside between the hours of 2 and 5 am on a
January night.
Unsheltered homeless counts illuminate the local gap in services for the homeless.
Exhibit 17 shows unsheltered homeless counts in Auburn based on the Seattle/King County Coalition on
Homelessness counts. The one-night unsheltered homeless counts in Auburn show unsheltered
homelessness in the City ranging from 45-97 persons over the last four years. These figures are known
to undercount the unsheltered homeless, since not all areas are searched and many homeless persons
do not want to be seen. There are likely individuals and families that are improvising with camping,
sleeping in their cars, rotating through weekly motels, and spending nights in someone’s spare room or
couch with no fixed living situation. $54,329 $32,986 $61,189 $68,250 $83,782 $62,900 $71,453 $79,224 $0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
Auburn
King County
Pierce County
Page 41 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 17
Exhibit 17
Auburn Unsheltered Homeless Counts, 2010 – 2014
Auburn TOTAL Selected Areas*
Unsheltered Homeless Count 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Men 9 4 4 6 5
919 860 882 897 944
Women 4 1 0 2 0
159 191 174 205 213
Gender Unknown 37 40 40 49 92
1,664 1,357 1,531 1,615 1,942
Minor (under 18) 0 0 0 0 0
17 34 7 19 24
Total
50 45 44 57 97
2,759 2,442 2,594 2,736 3,123
Benches 0 0 0 0 0
42 21 23 16 56
Parking Garages 0 0 0 0 0
19 23 5 28 15
Cars/Trucks 31 21 34 27 49
891 767 791 878 993
Structures 4 0 0 4 2
316 249 348 353 409
Under Roadways 3 1 2 5 5
191 196 163 225 249
Doorways 0 0 2 1 0
136 131 154 163 228
City Parks 4 5 2 10 27
114 25 30 23 88
Brushes/undergrowth 6 0 2 6 4
129 89 77 88 118
Bus Stops 0 16 0 0 0
28 42 24 40 26
Alleys 0 0 0 0 0
16 21 14 48 47
Walking around 1 0 1 1 9
331 261 300 305 302
Other 1 2 1 3 1
546 617 665 569 592
Total 50 45 44 57 97
2,759 2,442 2,594 2,736 3,123
*Selected Areas include: Seattle, Kent, North End, East Side, White Center, Federal Way, Renton, Night Owl Buses and Auburn.
Source: Seattle/King County Coalition on Homelessness
The homelessness data in the chart above was collected during one-night counts in January of each
year. The highest counts of unsheltered homeless individuals was in cars/trucks and city parks.
Relative to the total unsheltered homeless count, Auburn had 3%; it is likely that throughout the
areas of the survey there was an undercount of homeless unsheltered persons.
Exhibit 18
Homeless Students in Auburn and Washington State, 2012-2013 School Year
Total Number
of Students Shelters Doubled Up
Unsheltere
d
Hotels or
Motels
Total
Number of
Homeless
Students
Percentage
of Students
who are
Homeless
Auburn School District 15,046 43 333 4 5 385 3%
Washington State 1,056,809 6,527 21,153 1,254 1,675 30,609 3%
Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), Feb 2014; OSPI Washington State Report Card.
According to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction Communication and Community
Outreach news in February 2014, the number of homeless students in Washington State has
increased for the sixth year in a row. The 2012-2013 number is an 11.8% increase from 2011-2012
and a 47.3% increase from 2007-2008.
Auburn School District’s student homeless population matches the state percentage.
Page 42 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 18
Employment & Labor Force Participation
Exhibit 19
Labor Force Participation and Unemployment Rate for Civilians 16+ Years Old,
2008-2012 5-Year Average
Population
16+ Years Old
% in Civilian
Labor Force
Unemployment
rate
% of Civilian
Labor Force
Below Poverty
Level
Auburn 54,889 66.7% 10.6% 45.8%
King County 1,574,056 70.4% 7.3% 52.7%
Pierce County 623,960 66.2% 10.3% 49.0%
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
About 45.8% of Auburn’s civilian labor force is below poverty level. This is slightly lower than Pierce
County, where 49.0% of the civilian labor force is below poverty level, and slightly lower than King
County, where 52.7% of the civilian labor force is below poverty level. This means a relatively high
percentage of the population consists of the “working poor”.
Housing Cost Burden
Exhibit 20
Percent of Auburn Households Spending More than 30% of Income on Housing,
2008-2012 5-Year Average
Source: ACS, 2012 (5-year estimates)
45%
37%
58%
86%
76%
91%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
All Owners Renters All Owners Renters
All Households
(Total: 26,968)
Households Earning Under $35K
(Total: 8,397)
Page 43 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 19
Exhibit 21
Number of HH Spending More than 30% of Income on Housing
(2008-2012) 5-Year Average
Auburn King County Pierce County
All Households
All 45% 41% 43%
Owners 37% 35% 37%
Renters 58% 50% 54%
Households Earning <$35K
All 86% 88% 85%
Owners 76% 77% 70%
Renters 91% 93% 95%
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
A vast majority of Auburn’s households (86%) earning under $35,000 a year are spending more than
30% of their income on housing, including nearly 91% of renter households and 76% of owner-
occupied households.
Nearly half (45%) of all households regardless of income are spending more than 30% of their
income on housing, including 58% of renters and 37% of owners.
Auburn’s housing cost burden characteristics are similar to King and Pierce Counties. It has a slightly
higher percentage of all households that are cost burdened (45%) compared with King County (41%)
and Pierce County (43%).
Housing and Transportation Costs
Means of Transportation and Travel Time to Work
Exhibit 22 shows the means of transportation for workers over 16 years old in Auburn, King County and
Pierce County, while Exhibit 23 provides information on travel time to work for workers over 16 years
who do not work at home. These indicators provide a sense of how Auburn compares to both Counties
overall in terms of convenience of and preference for using alternative modes of transportation
(excluding car, truck, or van) and commute burden.
Exhibit 22
Means of Transportation to Work, 2008-2012 5-Year Estimates
Total Workers 16 and Older Auburn King Pierce
Total Workers 16 and Older 32,009 1,004,804 363,532
Car, truck, or van - drove alone 74% 65% 77%
Car, truck, or van - carpooled 13% 11% 11%
Public transportation 6% 11% 3%
Walked 2% 4% 3%
Taxicab, motorcycle, bicycle, or other means 2% 3% 2%
Worked at home 3% 6% 4%
Source: American Community Survey, 2012 5-year average
Page 44 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 20
Exhibit 23
Travel Time to Work, 2012 Estimates
Auburn King Pierce
Total Workers 16 and Older
Not Working at Home
30,897 946,540 348,223
Less than 10 minutes 8% 9% 11%
10 - 19 minutes 27% 26% 25%
20 - 29 minutes 21% 24% 21%
30 - 44 minutes 23% 26% 18%
44 - 59 minutes 10% 9% 14%
60 minutes or more 11% 7% 11%
Average Mean Travel Time
Source: American Community Survey, 2012 5-year average.
Auburn has a higher percentage (74%) of workers over 16 years old who travel to work via car, truck
or van alone compared to King County overall (65%), but a slightly lower percentage compared to
Pierce County overall (77%).
Auburn has a lower percentage of workers who use public transportation (6%) compared to King
County overall (11%), but a higher percentage compared to Pierce County overall (3%).
Travel time to work for workers 16 and older not working at home is relatively similar to both King
and Pierce Counties overall.
Approximately 27% of workers not working at home have a commute between 10-19 minutes. This
is slightly larger compared to King and Pierce Counties.
Housing and Transportation Costs
Housing costs combined with transportation costs can exacerbate households’ ability to meet their basic
living needs within their means. Exhibit 24 shows there are several census tracts (in yellow, at left)
where households are spending more than 30% of their income on housing. For the same location over
the Auburn vicinity, the same census tracts show that the cost of housing and transportation combined
consumes 45% of the households’ income.
Page 45 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 21
Exhibit 24
Housing Costs Compared to Housing + Transportation Costs
Source: H+T Transportation Costs, http://htaindex.cnt.org/, 2011
Placing housing near multiple modes of travel can help reduce travel costs to some degree. Exhibit 25
shows an opportunity index regarding where there is relatively more access to transit or less. Downtown
Auburn and other areas to the northeast and southeast have more transit service than other parts of
Auburn.
Page 46 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 22
Exhibit 25
South King County Transit Opportunity Map
[this is 2011 information; determine value of map in 2014 ]
Source: PSRC 2011
3.0 HOUSING INVENTORY AND AFFORDABILITY
The Growth Management Act requires each city and county to prepare a housing element including an
inventory and analysis of existing and projected housing needs, 1) identifying the number of housing
units necessary to manage projected growth, 2) providing sufficient land for housing, including, but not
limited to, government-assisted housing, housing for low-income families, manufactured housing,
multifamily housing, and group homes and foster care facilities, 3) and making adequate provisions for
existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community.
VISION 2040, a regional growth strategy adopted by the City and 80 other jurisdictions in the four-
county region also identifies that the housing element should provide opportunities for a range of
housing types and choices to meet the housing needs of all income levels and demographic groups.
Additionally, King County’s Countywide Planning Policies provide a framework for all jurisdictions to plan
for and promote a range of affordable, accessible, and healthy housing choices for current and future
residents. In King County, there is currently an unmet need for housing that is affordable for households
earning less than 80 percent of the Area Median Income.
This section describes the City’s housing inventory including the proportion of housing that is affordable
to segments of the City’s population. The information shows information citywide and compares
information to King County and Pierce County statistics.
Page 47 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 23
Housing Units
The housing inventory changes daily as new units are built and older units are torn down. The
Washington State Office of Financial Management estimates current housing units for all Washington
jurisdictions over time.
Exhibit 26 and Exhibit 27 present the proportion of housing units by unit type. The types include:
One unit,
Two or more units, and
Mobile homes and special units. Special units include permanent residents living in travel trailers,
RVs, boats, sheds, tents, and others.
Exhibit 26
2014 Housing Unit Estimates
Source: OFM Forecasting Division, April 1, 2013
Exhibit 27
Housing Unit Estimates 2010 - 2014
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Change
2010 - 2013
Compound
Annual
Growth
Rate
Auburn Total 27,834 28,002 28,206 28,864 29,276 1,442 1.3%
One Unit 14,641 14,775 14,957 15,393 15,804 1,163 1.9%
Two or more 10,560 10,592 10,631 10,841 10,841 281 0.7%
Mobile Homes and Specials 2,633 2,635 2,618 2,630 2,631 (2) 0.0%
King County Total 851,261 857,354 862,091 869,835 880,013 28,752 0.8%
One Unit 494,230 496,208 498,131 500,599 503,464 9,234 0.5%
Two or more 338,645 342,852 345,684 350,970 358,262 19,617 1.4%
Mobile Homes and Specials 18,386 18,294 18,276 18,266 18,287 (99) -0.1%
Pierce County Total 325,375 327,308 329,158 331,861 335,252 9,877 0.8%
One Unit 218,828 220,245 221,566 223,235 225,693 6,865 0.8%
Two or more 80,645 81,069 81,552 82,486 83,301 2,656 0.8%
Mobile Homes and Specials 25,902 25,994 26,040 26,140 26,258 356 0.3%
Source: OFM Forecasting Division, April 1, 2013
The majority of housing units in Auburn, King County, and Pierce County are single family units (one
unit). Auburn has a slightly lower proportion of single family units (53%) compared to King County
overall with 58% of all housing units as single family, and a much lower proportion compared to
Pierce County overall with 67%.
Auburn has a larger proportion of housing units in mobile homes and specials (9%) compared to King
County (2%), but is similar to Pierce County (8%).
53%
58%
67%
38%
40%
25%
9%
2%
8%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Auburn
King County
Pierce County
One Unit Two or more Mobile Homes and Specials
Page 48 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 24
New housing growth in Auburn has been concentrated in single-family units, with limited attached
units added since 2010. Auburn added an estimated 1,442 housing units between 2010 and 2014,
resulting in a most recent count of 29,276. This represents a compound annual growth rate of 1.3%
a year, nearly twice the growth rate of King County and Pierce County as a whole which both had a
compound growth rate of 0.8% a year from 2010 to 2014.
Most added housing units in Auburn were single family units; this is different from King County
which mostly added attached units. The single family unit compound annual growth rate for Auburn
was 1.9%, almost four times the rate in King County, which saw .5% annual growth rate a year in
single family units, and more than twice the rate in Pierce County (.8%).
Housing Types and Sizes
Exhibit 28
Number of Bedrooms
Auburn King County Pierce County
Bedrooms Housing Units Percent Percent Percent
No bedroom (studios) 236 0.8% 3.9% 1.8%
1 bedroom 3,405 12.0% 17.1% 10.4%
2 bedrooms 9,063 31.9% 26.3% 25.0%
3 bedrooms 9,230 32.5% 29.4% 41.9%
4 bedrooms 4,956 17.4% 17.8% 17.2%
5 or more bedrooms 1,515 5.3% 5.6% 3.7%
Total Housing Units 28,405 100% 100% 100%
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
The majority of Auburn’s housing types have 2-3 bedrooms, accounting for 64.4% of housing units.
This is much higher compared to King County (55.7%), and slightly lower than Pierce County (66.9%).
Auburn has 6,471 large units (having 4 or more bedrooms), which aligns with the approximately
6,300 households with 5 or more persons (see Exhibit 6). This suggests Auburn does not have a
severe shortage of larger units to accommodate its larger households.
Auburn has a lower percentage of units with no bedrooms (studios) compared to King County and
Pierce County.
Tenure
Exhibit 29
Housing Tenure
Auburn
King
County Pierce County
Occupied Units Percent Percent Percent
Owner-occupied 16,208 60.1% 58.9% 62.2%
Renter-occupied 10,760 39.9% 41.1% 37.8%
Occupied Housing Units 26,968 100% 100% 100%
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
Page 49 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 25
Auburn is similar to both King and Pierce Counties in housing tenure rates. Approximately 60%
of housing units are owner-occupied and about 40% are renter-occupied.
Vacancy Rates
Vacancy rates are a leading indicator of a housing market, which can indicate future changes in housing
prices and demand.
Exhibit 30
Vacancy Rates
Unit Type
Auburn
Percent
King County
Percent
Pierce County
Percent
Homeowner 2.1% 1.9% 2.5%
Renter 4.8% 4.4% 5.8%
Vacant Housing Units 5.1% 6.4% 8.1%
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
Auburn’s overall vacancy rate is 5.1%, which is lower than both King County and Pierce County.
Auburn’s vacancy for owner-occupied units is 2.1%, falling between King County and Pierce County.
The homeowner vacancy rate is low for Auburn and both King and Pierce Counties, suggesting
limited supply for those seeking to purchase a home.
Auburn’s renter vacancy rate is 4.8%, falling between King and Pierce counties. In general, a vacancy
rate of 5% of less for rental units is considered a very tight market that will put upward pressure on
prices and potentially stimulate investment for new housing stock.
Page 50 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 26
Housing Units by Year Built
Exhibit 31
Residential Housing by Date Built in Auburn
Source: King County and Pierce County Assessors Offices, 2014; BERK Consulting 2014
Page 51 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 27
Across all housing units, age of structure is the single most important physical attribute in predicting the
degree of structure quality. National research has demonstrated a negative correlation between the age
of a unit and its condition. Generally speaking, a residential unit will have a functional life of around 40
years, at which point additional investments will be needed to maintain structural adequacy. Exhibit 31
presents the age of housing units for all residential structures in Auburn.
Most of the new housing (built in 2001 to present) has been concentrated mainly in the south and
northeast regions of the city, particularly the Lakeland neighborhood and Lea Hill neighborhood.
Most of the lots in the Downtown vicinity were developed before 1950. In South Auburn, housing
was generally built in the 1950s. These structures are more than 50 years old, and it is likely that
many have structural deficiencies. There is some evidence of site-level redevelopment within these
neighborhoods, which bodes well for future investment by property owners.
Housing Condition and Quality
Housing quality has many dimensions including structural integrity, energy efficiency, wear and tear,
housing design, and relationship to amenities and services. There is no comprehensive data set that
reports the quality of housing across all these domains. This analysis examines multiple dimensions of
housing quality to ascertain the specific housing quality challenges experienced in Auburn.
County Assessors rate the building condition of each residential unit in their jurisdiction. The Building
Condition values are rated relative to age and grade (that is, taking into account the age of the structure
and the original building quality in terms of materials, craftsmanship, and design). They include:
1 = Poor- Worn out. Repair and overhaul needed on painted surfaces, roofing, plumbing, heating,
and numerous functional inadequacies. Excessive deferred maintenance and abuse, limited value-in-
use, approaching abandonment or major reconstruction; reuse or change in occupancy is imminent.
Effective age is near the end of the scale regardless of the actual chronological age.
2 = Fair- Badly worn. Much repair needed. Many items need refinishing or overhauling, deferred
maintenance obvious, inadequate building utility and systems all shortening the life expectancy and
increasing the effective age.
3 = Average- Some evidence of deferred maintenance and normal obsolescence with age in that a
few minor repairs are needed, along with some refinishing. All major components still functional
and contributing toward an extended life expectancy. Effective age and utility is standard for like
properties of its class and usage.
4 = Good- No obvious maintenance required but neither is everything new. Appearance and utility
are above the standard and the overall effective age will be lower than the typical property.
5= Very Good- All items well maintained, many having been overhauled and repaired as they have
shown signs of wear, increasing the life expectancy and lowering the effective age with little
deterioration or obsolescence evident with a high degree of utility.
Page 52 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 28
Exhibit 32 Residential Building Condition and Mobile Homes in Auburn
Source: King County and Pierce County Assessors Offices, 2014; BERK Consulting 2014
King County and Pierce County Assessors’ ratings of residential structure quality show a large
proportion of the residential structures is considered to have average conditions (depicted in
yellow), suggesting Auburn has a significant amount of housing stock for which maintenance has
been deferred. Much of the housing stock in Auburn is older than 40 years and many structures may
Page 53 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 29
be approaching the need for more comprehensive refurbishment and updates to keep structures in
a useful condition.
Areas close to the downtown are dominated by housing rated as “good”, and show evidence of
investment indicated by the intermixing of higher-rated quality buildings such as in the area around
Auburn High School and Washington Elementary School. Areas that are both dominated by lower
ratings (average and poor) and showing more homogeneity (lacking newer or higher rated-
structures) are likely to have more significant housing quality deficiencies.
Building conditions rated ‘poor’ represent housing that has the greatest quality deficiencies and may
be posing a health or safety risk to inhabitants. Exhibit 32 overlays the number of mobile homes,
demonstrating areas with higher concentrations of mobile homes tend to show average to fair to
poor conditions. Mobile homes differ from stick-on-site built homes, and are more difficult to
update in an incremental way due to both structural and financing constraints. As a result, full
replacement is necessary for mobile units with deferred maintenance or outdated systems.
Another indicator of housing quality is the improvement value of the structure. To a large degree, the
price of a home will be driven by location factors. However, assessor information on improvement value
gives an indication of the overall quality of the structure apart from the land costs. Overall, higher values
per square foot indicate higher levels of housing quality.
Page 54 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 30
Exhibit 33 Residential Assessed Improvement Value per Square Foot
In Auburn, improvement value per square foot ranges from 0 dollars in cases where the structure has no
utility as a housing unit and is ready to be torn down, to $312/sq. ft. indicating a superior craftsmanship
and/or premium or custom finishes.
Page 55 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 31
Overall, the assessed improvement value per square foot in Auburn is relatively low. This is likely
owing to the age of much of Auburn’s housing as well as its position in the overall metropolitan
market.
At today’s prices, construction costs independent of land and site work for in-fill development are
between $100 - $150 dollars per square foot. The assessors’ data indicate that about 300 units have
improvement values per square foot higher than $100.
Similar to the patterns presenting in building condition rating (Exhibit 32), housing with the lowest
improvement values per square foot are concentrated in the periphery areas outside of the city
center. Exceptions include northeast Auburn around 132nd SE and the Lakeland Hills area.
Exhibit 34
Assessed Improvement Value per Square Foot
A closer look at the improvement value per square foot demonstrates the distribution of housing units
in Auburn.
There are approximately 1,600 units with no or very limited improvement value listed.
There is a long tail stretching towards higher improvement values per square foot, demonstrating
the presences of some higher value housing stock.
The median improvement value (not including lots with no improvement value) is $16.73.
Page 56 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 32
Exhibit 35
Land Value per Lot Square Foot
Source: King County and Pierce County Assessors Offices, 2014; BERK Consulting 2014
Much of the City’s land value per lot square foot shows most land is valued in the lower to moderate
levels, whether the lots are large or small.
Page 57 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 33
Exhibit 36
Assessed Value of Land per Lot Square Foot – Histogram
Source: King County and Pierce County Assessors Offices, 2014; BERK Consulting 2014
Most parcels have an assessed value of land per lot square feet that is low to moderate.
Page 58 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 34
Exhibit 37
Residential Land with Low Building to Land Value Ratios
Source: King County and Pierce County Assessors Offices, 2014; BERK Consulting 2014
Combining lot and structure value relationships, there are lots with relatively low improvement
value to land value and may be areas of potential subdivision or redevelopment to higher densities.
Page 59 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 35
Code Enforcement
The City enforces a number of City ordinances including property maintenance and public nuisance
regulations regarding junk vehicles, tall grass, and others to help maintain the character and quality of
neighborhoods. About 1,000 complaints are addressed each year, with 8-10% associated with housing
conditions (personal communication, Jeff Tate, October 29, 2014).
Code enforcement staff address abandoned properties. There are several properties (~15-20) that are
unmaintained and a detriment to neighborhoods – the City calls out abandoned properties on its “wall
of shame” on its website intending to spur mortgage holders, often out of state financial institutions, to
take action.
More recently the City has addressed a trend of increased rental housing such as near the Green River
Community College by instituting a Rental Housing Business License program involving an informal
inspection. This is intended to help address the impacts of communal residences on a neighborhood.
This inspection is intended to ensure the criteria for the rental business license is met, but does not
address conditions per se.
In the future, the City may establish more specific requirements for housing condition as City staff have
seen tenants living in substandard conditions with mold, moisture, rodent and insect problems. The City
has investigated a number of methods to address substandard housing conditions, such as establishing a
housing inspection program, a landlord / manager training program, and loan repair programs. (public
works, 2012) Different tools are under consideration in the Housing Element Update.
Neighborhoods with Unique Housing Conditions or Amenities
As shown in Exhibit 2, the City is made up of a number of neighborhoods, with Downtown in particular
highlighted in central Auburn. A summary of housing conditions and amenities is included below.
Downtown
Downtown is the City’s core, and was developed early in the late 1880s and early 1900s. The City has
designated it as a Regional Growth Center. It has a population of about 1,366 and an employment base
of 2,888 as of 2010 (PSRC 2013). The City has developed incentives for mixed use development in
Downtown, and requires ground floor retail, unlimited density (based on floor area ratio), and height
bonuses for features that promote pedestrian movement. Housing conditions are rated by the Assessor
as generally “good” or “average”.
North Auburn
North Auburn has housing focused east of Auburn Way North. Many of the properties were developed
prior to the 1950s, with others developed in the 1970s, and some more recently after the year 2000. The
majority of residential properties in North Auburn are in “good” or “average” condition. There are a few
concentrated areas of mobile home units in the northern part of the neighborhood near the river that
are in “poor” condition. Parkland is located in several locations, along the river, the freeway, as well as
in the southern portions of this neighborhood.
South Auburn
South Auburn was largely developed before or during the 1950s and 1960s. The majority of residential
properties in the South Auburn neighborhood are in “good” or “average” condition. There are large
concentrated areas of mobiles homes in the southern part of the neighborhood near the river that are in
“poor”, “fair” or “average” condition. The City’s Les Gove Community Campus with the library and
Senior Center, as well as other centers and play areas is located in South Auburn.
Page 60 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 36
West Hill
West Hill to the north has single family homes built in the 1980’s predominantly, with some apartment
complexes developed prior to the 1950s. Most of the residential properties in the West Hill
neighborhood are in “average” condition. West Hill has few mobile home units dispersed throughout
the neighborhood. There are a few properties near the northern city boundary that are in “fair” or
“poor” condition, representing units built in the 1950s. There is little parkland in the West Hill Area, but
there are some schools that provide some amount of open space and recreation opportunity.
Lea Hill
Lea Hill reflects development across many decades, with the central area developed pre-1950s to
present day. The northern area developed in the 1960s, and the northeast in the 1990s. The majority of
residential properties in the Lea Hill neighborhood are in “good” or “average” condition. There is a
concentrated area of mobile homes near the southeast city boundary that are in “average” condition.
Parks are located along the river as well as scattered to the south and east.
Plateau
The Plateau neighborhood was developed in the 1960s and 1970s predominantly. The majority of
residential properties in the Plateau neighborhood are in “good” or “average” condition. There are a
few concentrated areas of mobile homes that are in “average” condition.
Lakeland
Lakeland is a master planned community at the City’s southern border, and was developed between
1990 and 2010. The majority of residential properties in the Lakeland neighborhood are in “average”
condition or are new. There are little to no mobile home units in the neighborhood. Parks are located
in several places within the development.
Southeast Auburn
Southeast Auburn is more lightly populated than other areas of the City. Homes are focused to the
south and were developed generally between 1950 and 1990. The majority of residential properties in
Southeast Auburn neighborhood are in “average” condition. There are few mobile home units dispersed
near the City’s southern border. Open space is located along the river.
Capacity for Additional Housing
The City is required to provide capacity for its fair share of population as determined through
countywide planning with King and Pierce Counties. Pierce County targets address the year 2030 and
King County targets address the year 2031. However, per GMA, the City will need to plan to the year
2035.
Every five years approximately, a buildable lands report is prepared by both counties to determine
progress towards targets. Exhibit 38 shows the combined remaining growth target to the years
2030/2031 and the City estimated growth capacity. The additional straight-line growth from the 2030
Pierce County target and 2031 King County target is also shown.
Page 61 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 37
Exhibit 38
Land Capacity and Growth Target
Capacity and Target Number of Dwellings
Total Capacity (units), King and Pierce Counties 15,519
Remaining Housing Target (2012-2031) King County 9,004
Pierce County Housing Target (2010-2030) 493
Total Target 9,497
Surplus/Deficit Capacity at 2030/2031 6,022
Additional growth 2030 / 2031 to 2035: King and Pierce
Counties
1,829
Balance with additional 2031-2035 deduction 4,193
Source: King County 2014, Pierce County 2014
The BLR indicates the City has capacity to meet its remaining housing targets to the year 2031.
If growth is carried forward to the full 20-year planning period – 2015-2035 the City would still be
able to meet its targets and has excess development capacity.
Based on buildable lands report information for the portion of Auburn in King County, a little more
than half of the City’s land capacity is for mixed use (6,396) and multifamily (1,616) units, and nearly
half is in single family (6,585) capacity.
Based on buildable lands report information for the portion of Auburn in Pierce County, Auburn’s
capacity is for dwellings in single family (323), planned unit development (513), and Terrace View
(86) zoning designations. The capacity provides single family units predominantly around Lakeland
Hills though the area does have some elements of attached units.
Housing Attainability
A primary determinant of whether housing is attainable for a household is whether the household’s
income can support the cost of the housing. King County’s Countywide Planning Polices require each
jurisdiction to assess the affordability of its housing inventory and to plan for meeting local needs for
affordable housing as well as accommodating a share of the countywide need for affordable housing.
The Countywide Planning Policies provide guidelines for determining housing affordability using Area
Median Income (AMI) to establish housing market segments ranging from Very-Low Income Housing
Needs to Moderate Housing Income Needs. Area Median Income is the midpoint of all household
income, so that half the households earn more than the median income and half the households earn
less than the median.
Exhibit 39 presents the Area Median Income estimates for King County, using three different data
sources. The HUD AMI of $88,200 relates to a family of four, which is different than the true median
which would be based on all households of every household size in a community. The median household
income estimate for King County reported by the American Community Survey is $71,175, quite a bit
less than HUD’s estimate. For purposes of determining housing affordability, this analysis uses the
American Community Survey (5-year estimate) for King County. While Auburn’s AMI is also reported,
and is lower, it is not the basis for the income analysis that follows as the analysis keys on the
countywide information.
The Countywide Planning Polices require jurisdictions to analyze housing affordability using 30%, 50%,
and 80% ratios to the HUD published Area Median Income. Exhibit 39 also presents the upper income
bounds of each Housing Need category.
Page 62 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 38
Exhibit 39
Income Ranges and Area Median Income
Upper Bounds of Income Category
King County
(2014
Dollars)
King County
(2012
Dollars)
Auburn
(2012
Dollars)
Area Median Income $88,200 $71,175 $54,329
Moderate Income Housing Need (80% of AMI) $70,560 $56,940 $43,463
Low Income Housing Need (50% of AMI) $44,100 $35,588 $27,165
Very-Low Income Housing Need (30% of AMI) $26,460 $21,353 $16,299
HUD AMI ACS ACS
Source: ACS 2012
Estimating Households by Percent of Median Income
To estimate the demand for affordable housing, the analysis estimates the number of households that
belong to each of the Housing Need categories. The American Community Survey (ACS) provides
information on the number of households by income in $5,000 to $10,000 income ranges, but not the
number of households according to ratios of Area Median Income (AMI). Using the available household
income data, this analysis groups households according to affordability income categories. In cases
where the income category falls between the income ranges reported by the ACS, we assume that
households are evenly distributed within the ACS’s household income range. For example, if there are
5,000 households in the $20,000 to $24,999 income range, we assume there are 1,000 households with
income between $20,000 to $21,000, or 20% of that income range’s households. If 30% of the County’s
median income was $21,000, to estimate the number of households at or below 30% of median income,
the methods includes all households below $20,000 plus the 1,000 households assumed to earn
between $20,000 and $21,000.
Using King County’s 2012 area median income of $71,175, Exhibit 40 presents the estimated number of
households in each income category for King County and Auburn. In the most recent Countywide
Planning Polices, King County estimates that 12% of households in King County have incomes at 30% or
below AMI. This analysis, using ACS 2011 5-year estimates (the best available estimates with least
margin of error) estimates approximately 13% of all households having income at 30% or below AMI.
Exhibit 40
Household Estimates by Percentage Median Income, 2012 dollars
Income Ranges
Rounded (1,000s)
Income Ranges Estimated Households
Low High Low High Auburn Percent
King
County
Under 30% $0 $21,353 $0 $21,000 4,497 16.7% 13.1%
30 - 50% $21,353 $35,588 $21,000 $36,000 4,161 15.4% 11.4%
50 - 80% $35,588 $56,940 $36,000 $57,000 5,238 19.4% 15.8%
80 - 100% $56,940 $71,175 $57,000 $71,000 2,788 10.3% 9.4%
100 - 120% $71,175 $85,410 $71,000 $85,000 2,280 8.5% 8.0%
120% or Over $85,410 $1,000,001 $85,000 $1,000,001 8,004 29.7% 42.3%
Total 26,968 100% 100%
Source: Figures based on American Community Survey 2008 – 2012 5-year average; BERK, 2014. Figures may not add to total
due to rounding.
Page 63 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 39
Under 30% AMI (HUD Extremely Low / County Very Low. Auburn has a higher percentage of the
population earning less than 30% of the AMI at 16.7% versus 13.1%for King County.
Between 30-50% AMI (HUD Very Low / County Low Income Housing Need). Auburn also has a
higher proportion of households earning 30-50% of the County AMI than King County at 15.4%
versus 11.4%.
Between 50-80% AMI (HUD Low / County Moderate Income Housing Need). Auburn’s proportion
of moderate income households at 50-80% of the King County AMI is likewise higher than the
County proportion at 19.4% versus 15.8%.
Above 80% AMI. At 80-100% and 100-120% of AMI, generally middle incomes, Auburn is similar to
King County. At over 120% AMI, Auburn has a much lower percent of households in high income
levels compared to King County as a whole.
Affordability of Renter Occupied Housing
In general, attached housing, such as apartments, is less expensive partly owing to the lower cost of land
per unit and thus serves a greater proportion of lower-income households. To improve understanding of
housing attainability for households with lower incomes, we examine the income distribution of
households who rent compared to the supply of available rental housing.
Breaking out renter occupied housing units according to income levels, households that rent housing in
Auburn and King County tend to have lower incomes. For example, estimated households earning 30%
or below AMI represent 30% of Auburn renter households compared to 16.7% of all households. The
distribution of household income skews lower in Auburn than King County. In general, Auburn has
higher percentages of households in lower income categories and lower percentages of households in
higher income categories compared to King County.
Exhibit 41
Income Levels and Renter Households
Rounded (1,000s)
Income Ranges City of Auburn King County
Low High
Estimated
HHs Percent
Estimated
HHs Percent
Under 30% $0 $21,000 3,199 30% 78,076 24%
30 - 50% $21,000 $36,000 2,729 25% 56,813 17%
50 - 80% $36,000 $57,000 2,292 21% 65,338 20%
80 - 100% $57,000 $71,000 925 9% 33,842 10%
100 - 120% $71,000 $85,000 612 6% 24,120 7%
120% or Over $85,000 $1,000,001 1,004 9% 69,337 21%
Total 10,760 100% 327,525 100%
Source: Figures based on American Community Survey 2008 – 2012 5-year average; BERK, 2014. Figures may not add to total
due to rounding.
Exhibit 42 compares the number of renter households by housing need category to the number of units
being rented at rents affordable to each category. Exhibit 42 compares renters (people) with housing
rents (unit costs) and does not speak to the housing burden of any particular household or group. Very
low income households may be renting at prices much more than they can afford, and median and
upper income households may be paying a smaller proportion of their monthly income on rent.
Page 64 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 40
Exhibit 42
Auburn Renter-Occupied Income and Current Rents
Ratio to King
County AMI
$71,175
Income Ranges
Monthly Housing
Budget*
Estimated Renter HHs Estimated Gap
Low High Low High Count Percent Units over/(under)
Under 30% $0 $21,000 $0 $525 3,199 30% 769 (2,430)
30 - 50% $21,000 $36,000 $525 $900 2,729 25% 3,330 601
50 - 80% $36,000 $57,000 $900 $1,425 2,292 21% 5,405 3,114
80 - 100% $57,000 $71,000 $1,425 $1,775 925 9% 661 (263)
100 - 120% $71,000 $85,000 $1,775 $2,125 612 6% 113 (499)
120% or Over $85,000 $2,125 $0 1,004 9% 350 (654)
Total 10,760 10,628
*Estimated monthly housing budget based on 30% of monthly gross income.
Source: Figures based on American Community Survey 2008 – 2012 5-year average; BERK, 2014. Figures may not add to total
due to rounding.
In March 2014, the average market rent for an apartment in Auburn was $929 (Dupre & Scott, 2014).
This is above the self-reported rents presented in Exhibit 42. The self-reported rents reflect what
households pay, including any discounts or subsidies. For example, the King County Housing Authority,
along with rent vouchers ported in from other public housing authorities, subsidizes approximately
2,339 units of housing in Auburn (see Exhibit 43). These subsidized units likely account for a large
portion of the households that report paying less than $525 per month in rent and some portion of the
households that pay less than $900 per month in rent. There are also other housing subsidizes, at much
smaller scales, offered by other organizations.
Accounting for all the non-market factors that may reduce the rent a household pays, the gap analysis
shows:
There are approximately 3,199 renting households in Auburn with incomes under 30% of AMI. There
is a gap in housing units affordable to this Housing Need category of 2,430 units.
Auburn has more units with rents affordable to households with annual incomes of $21,000 to
$36,000 than there are households earning those annual incomes (+601). Due to the gap in units
available at the extremely low income level, it is likely that many households in the very low-income
category (less than $21,000 annual income) are renting in the $525- $900 monthly rent range. These
households would be considered “rent burdened” because they are spending more than 30% of
their income on rent.
About 21% of Auburn’s renting households can afford rentals in the range of $900 - $1,425 per
month. In this market bracket, there is a surplus of units (+3,114). These units are likely occupied by
households with lower incomes and are rent burdened, as well as households in higher income
brackets who are paying less than 30% of their income on rent. Households in the median income
ranges (80 – 120% of AMI) are good candidates for entry-level homeownership housing.
Page 65 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 41
Exhibit 43
Housing Authority Subsidized Rental Units
Affordable Housing Properties Number of Units Subsidy Type
Family 1,369
Auburn Manor Apartments 25 Tax Credit
Auburn Square 160 Other
Cedar Pointe 89 Tax Credit
Cedar Ridge Apartments 48 Tax Credit
Cedar Village 24 Other
City Park Townhomes 11 Other
Green River Homes 60 Other
Gustaves Manor 35 Other
Harkey House 4 Other
Jack J. Lobdell Apartments 48 Other
Mansard Estates 9 Other
Meadows on Lea Hill 90 Other
Parkview Homes VI 4 Other
Rita's House (formerly Elizabeth's House) 8 Other
Seasons 332 Tax Credit
Severson House 7 Other
Skopabash Village 40 Other
Tall Cedars Mobile Home Park 128 Other
Valley Cities Landing 25 Other
Wesley Homes Lea Hill 174 Other
White River Apartments 24 Other
White River Garden 24 Tax Credit
Mental Health 16
D Street Homes 11 Other
Project Hope 5 Other
Senior Housing 611
Auburn Court Apartments 296 Tax Credit
Auburn Meadows Senior Community 78 Other
Burndale Homes 50 Public Housing
Firwood Circle 50 Public Housing
Plaza Seventeen 70 Public Housing
Wayland Arms 67 Public Housing
Transitional 61
Auburn Homeless House - Stabilization Project 1 Other
Valley Park East & West 60 Tax Credit
Vouchers 274
Ames Apartments 12 Section 8
Auburn Community Living 8 Section 8
Buena Vista Apartments 17 Section 8
Homewood Terrace I 44 Section 8
Homewood Terrace II 50 Section 8
Homewood Terrace III 68 Section 8
Northwood Square 24 Section 8
River Terrace Apartments 40 Section 8
Valleywood Apartments 11 Section 8
Youth 8
South King County Youth Shelter 8 Other
Total 2,339
Source: PSRC, 2013
Page 66 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 42
Larger units tend to command higher rents, and this is shown in Exhibit 44, where units that have 3+
bedrooms are renting for $1,000 or more.
Exhibit 44
Auburn Gross Rent by Bedroom
Rental Level
No
Bedroom
1
bedroom
2
bedrooms
3+
bedrooms Total Category %
Less than $200 23 68 19 50 160 1%
$200 to $299 6 85 114 3 208 2%
$300 to $499 21 133 174 24 352 3%
$500 to $749 50 857 432 187 1,526 14%
$750 to $999 18 1,402 1,840 231 3,491 32%
$1,000 or more 79 394 2,584 1,834 4,891 45%
No cash rent - - 57 75 132 1%
Total 197 2,939 5,220 2,404 10,760
Percent of Total 2% 27% 49% 22%
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
Dupre and Scott conduct on-going surveys of apartments in the Puget Sound Region. Exhibit 45 presents
the average rent and market vacancies for Auburn from 2005 to 2012, the most current available
estimate. Market vacancy figures do not include units undergoing renovation or lease up.
Page 67 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 43
Exhibit 45
Auburn Apartment Rents and Vacancy Rates
Since 2010, apartment vacancy rates in Auburn have continued to drop to 3.4% in 2014, and there
has been a corollary increase in average rents to $954. A 5% market vacancy is considered healthy,
with slightly higher vacancy rates expected in more suburban markets. If vacancies continue to
remain below 5%, average rents will likely increase.
Exhibit 46 presents a comparison of the current market prices for rental housing in Auburn with HUD’s
published fair market rents for King County.
$846 $858 $866
$900
$954
5.8%
5.3% 5.0%
4.5%
3.4%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
$700
$800
$900
$1,000
$1,100
$1,200
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Average Rent
Market Vacancy %
Page 68 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 44
Exhibit 46
Current and Fair Market Rents in Auburn and King County
Source: Dupre and Scott, 2014
Considering the overall housing picture in King County, Auburn offers affordable market rents,
particularly in 3 bedroom units. As expected given its suburban location in King County, Auburn’s
market rents trend lower than the County as a whole for each unit size. Auburn’s rents also trend
lower than HUD’s fair market rents for King County, suggesting that current market prices will
accommodate HUD’s federal subsidy programs.
Exhibit 47
Gross Rent by Bedroom
Low High
No
Bedroom
1
bed-
room
2
bed-
rooms
3+
bed-
rooms Total Category %
$0 $200 Less than $200 23 68 19 50 160 1%
$200 $299 $200 to $299 6 85 114 3 208 2%
$300 $499 $300 to $499 21 133 174 24 352 3%
$500 $749 $500 to $749 50 857 432 187 1,526 14%
$750 $999 $750 to $999 18 1,402 1,840 231 3,491 32%
$1,000
$1,000 or more 79 394 2,584 1,834 4,891 45%
No cash rent - - 57 75 132 1%
Total 197 2,939 5,220 2,404 10,760
Percent of Total 2% 27% 49% 22%
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
$758
$897
$1,104
$1,627
$655
$766
$1,048
$1,189
$1,049
$1,172
$1,498
$1,568
Studio 1 Bedroom 2Bedroom 3 Bedroom
HUD Fair Market Rent for King County
Current Market Prices in Auburn
Current Market Prices in King County
Page 69 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 45
Overcrowding
HUD defines an overcrowded housing unit as one where there is an average of more than 1 person living
per room. Exhibit 48 shows the percentage of rental units that are overcrowded in Auburn, King County,
and Pierce County.
Exhibit 48
Percentage of Rental Units that are Overcrowded, 2008-2012 5-Year Average
Auburn King County Pierce
Occupants per room 10,760 327,525 113,139
0.50 or less 6,492 201,460 69,343
0.51 to 1.00 3,585 110,330 39,084
1.01 to 1.50 622 10,382 3,419
1.51 to 2.00 41 4,672 876
2.01 or more 20 681 417
Number of Overcrowded Units (>1) 683 15,735 4,712
Percent of Units that are Overcrowded (>1) 6.3% 4.8% 4.2%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2012 American Community Survey.
Auburn has a higher percentage of rental units that are overcrowded (6.3%) than King County
overall (4.8%) and Pierce County overall (4.2%). This is likely somewhat driven by the larger average
household size in Auburn.
Affordability of Owner Occupied Housing
Home ownership helps create stability in neighborhoods, and has historically been a significant driver of
personal and household wealth for individuals and families. A key aspect to addressing a community’s
housing needs is to ensure there are opportunities for home ownership for moderate-income levels and
first time homebuyers. The exhibits below assess the opportunity in Auburn’s owner-occupied housing
market based on housing need category. Exhibit 49 shows the distribution of households living in owner
occupied housing in Auburn and King County by housing need category.
Exhibit 49
Household Estimates of Owners by Percent of Median Income
Rounded (1,000s)
Income Ranges King County City of Auburn
Low High
Estimated
HHs Percent
Estimated
HHs Percent
Under 30% $0 $21,000 27,378 6% 1,146 7%
30 - 50% $21,000 $36,000 33,372 7% 1,646 10%
50 - 80% $36,000 $57,000 58,125 12% 2,770 17%
80 - 100% $57,000 $71,000 42,437 9% 1,935 12%
100 - 120% $71,000 $85,000 40,109 9% 1,712 11%
120% or Over $85,000 $1,000,001 267,608 57% 7,000 43%
Total 469,030 100% 16,208 100%
Source: ACS, 2012 5-year estimates (King County and Auburn).
Page 70 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 46
For both Auburn and King County, there is owner-occupied housing across all income categories.
Given the age and current condition of a significant portion of Auburn’s housing stock, some very
low-income households may struggle to maintain their homes.
Generally, Auburn has more households in the moderate and middle income levels that are able to
own a home compared to King County, suggesting that Auburn offers more affordable
homeownership opportunities than available in other parts of King County.
Exhibit 50 provides median sales prices in Auburn over the last nine years by housing type, and Exhibit
51 estimates the income needed to purchase a home, as well as the percentage of households that
meet the income thresholds.
Exhibit 50
Auburn Median Sales Prices
Source: Auburn Median Sales Price Jan 2005 - July 2014, Zillow.com
In July 2014, Auburn’s median sales price across all units was $306,300, about $100,000 less than
King County’s median selling price of $406,200 (not shown).
After a peak in 2007 and 2008, home prices in Auburn trended downward due to the economic
recession, and are trending upwards more recently.
Single family units have a median sales price of $270,000, much higher than the median sales price
of condominiums at $162,000.
Exhibit 51 presents an assessment of the attainability of housing at current median sales prices using
standard assumptions, including:
A down payment of 20% of the sale price;
Interest rate of 5.5%;
30 year fixed rate mortgage;
Taxes at 10.73%;
Insurance at $3.50 per $1,000 value; and
Housing cost burden not to exceed 30% of gross income.
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Single
Family
$270,000
All Units
$259,000
Condo
$162,000
JULY 2014
Page 71 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN
HOUSING NEEDS & CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT
Draft: October 31, 2014 47
Exhibit 51
Annual Income Needed to Purchase a Home at Current Median Selling Price, 2013
Source:
Zillow, ACS, 2012 (5-year estimates), BERK
To purchase a single family home at the current median selling price a household would need to
earn $61,514 annually or $5,126 monthly. There are an estimated 12,410 households in Auburn with
incomes greater than $60,000, or 46% of the population that can afford the median home price in
Auburn.
Current condominium prices present a more affordable housing ownership opportunity. Households
with incomes of $37,043 would be able to afford a condominium at current median prices, making
condominium ownership affordable for a much higher percentage of the population (69%) than
single family home ownership.
Single Family Condominiums
Monthly Mortgage Monthly Mortgage
Median Selling Price $270,000 Median Selling Price $162,000
Down Payment (20%)$54,000 Down Payment (20%)$32,400
Mortgage Amount $216,000 Mortgage Amount $129,600
Interest Rate 5.50%Interest Rate 5.50%
Payments over 30 years 360 Payments over 30 years 360
Monthly Mortgage Payment $1,221 Monthly Mortgage Payment $736
Annual Housing Expenses Annual Housing Expenses
Mortgage Payments $14,650 Mortgage Payments $8,830
Taxes (10.73%)$2,897 Taxes (10.73%)$1,738
Insurance ($3.50 per $1000)$907 Insurance ($3.50 per $1000)$544
Annual $18,454 Annual $11,113
Monthly $1,538 Monthly $926
Monthly Income Needed $5,126 Monthly Income Needed $3,087
Annual Income Needed $61,514 Annual Income Needed $37,043
Households Households
Number of households with Number of households with
with income > $60,000 12,410 with income >$35,000 18,508
Total households 26,968 Total households 26,968
Estimate of households that 46%Estimate of households that 69%
can afford median home price can afford median condo price
Page 72 of 160
Page 73 of 160
AUBURN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Part II. Summary of Community Outreach
Objectives and Activities
OBJECTIVES
In the first part of 2014, the City conducted a broad community visioning process to inform its overall
Comprehensive Plan Update. To ensure that the Housing Element best reflects the needs and desires of
Auburn’s minority populations and protected classes, the Auburn Housing Element Updated called for
additional targeted outreach to complement the recently established Community Vision. City staff and
BERK Consulting established the following outreach and engagement objectives for the Auburn Housing
Element Update during a kick-off meeting on August 19, 2014:
• Meet the public participation goals of the Growth Management Act (GMA);
• Ask new questions of the community specific to housing needs of diverse and targeted populations;
• Provide multiple outreach strategies and diverse activities to encourage inclusive outreach;
• Collect information that useful not only for the Housing Element, but also for the Parks and
Recreation Department that is seeking feedback on the Les Gove campus and new youth center.
• Broaden connections with Auburn’s Russian speakers, Hispanic and Latino populations, Asian &
Pacific Islander community, the Marshallese community, older residents, and other identified
subpopulations.
• Demonstrate how public input was considered in the development of the Housing Element update.
METHODS
Outreach and engagement activities were designed to reach targeted populations within the
compressed project timeline. At the project start, BERK worked with City staff to identify ethnic groups
and sub-populations that the City desired to hear from, including the Ukrainian/Russian-speaking
community, the Hispanic community, and sub-populations including seniors and renters in Auburn.
BERK conducted initial interviews with City staff and other community leaders to identify possible
outreach strategies that would meet the project’s objectives and be implementable within the project
timeframe.
To establish the best outreach strategies BERK employed the following methods:
• Key informant interviews. The City of Auburn provided a list of several key City staff who had
existing relationships with key ethnic population leaders. BERK employed a snow ball strategy for
informant interviews, beginning with City staff and following up with secondary contacts including
the Auburn School District, King County Housing Authority, and Auburn Library. In addition, BERK
conducted intercept interviews with other individuals encountered in the field as well as individuals
known to BERK staff.
October 2014 1 Page 74 of 160
AUBURN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
OUTREACH OBJECTIVES AND FINDINGS
• Informal group interview. A BERK staff person attended a Community Meeting at the Auburn
Library in September 2014, which attracted representatives of many local community and social
organizations in the Auburn area.
• Research and Document Review. BERK also performed online research to learn more about
Auburn’s ethnic communities, including local newspaper articles written about Auburn’s diversity 1,
and looking for local community gathering places such as churches, restaurants and ethnic grocery
stores.
• Field visits and reconnaissance. BERK staff spent the better part of a day visiting unannounced
neighborhoods and sites associated with Auburn’s minority populations to learn more about daily
community activity and identify potential sites for outreach activities. Targeted sites include Marvel
Deli, a local fixture in the Ukrainian and Russian-speaking community, large apartment communities,
the library, and other locations. BERK collected additional information in the form of local
newspapers, advertisements, and business cards from community boards. We combed the printed
materials for potential leads, identifying the Continental Village apartment complex as a potential
site due to its large Hispanic community.
Community-specific Strategies and Events
Three outreach activities were prioritized based on likelihood of success and in consultation with City
staff. To ensure results were comparable across various outreach activities and staff, BERK developed a
standard set of questions specific to housing needs and concerns. The questions were coupled with
additional, activity specific questions for each engagement, and deployed in various ways including self-
administered surveys, as an intercept questionnaire, or as a basis for an informal conversation or group
interview with interpreter support.
After making initial contacts and scoping potential sites for outreach activities, BERK developed several
outreach activities that reflect a strategy to “go to the community.” To date, the following outreach
activities have been completed:
• Senior population: Lunch time interviews at Auburn Senior Activity Center. Working with Senior
Center staff, we arranged a time to interview seniors who attend the lunch program at the Senior
Activity Center. We conducted intercept interviews with seniors as they were waiting for lunch or
eating lunch and were willing to participate. We were able to interview approximately eighteen
seniors during the lunch hour.
• Russian Speaking Community: Interviews at Marvel Deli. We set up a small outreach table in the
store café and conducted intercept surveys with interpreter support. We engaged nine customers
during the 90 minute visit.
o Phone interview with Russian-speaking Real Estate Agent. To supplement the information we
gained through intercept surveys, we also conducted an informational interview with a few local
real-estate agents who advertised in the local Russian paper on their perception of housing
needs and concerns among their clients who have bought or are looking to buy a home in
Auburn.
1 Whale, Robert. “Emerging Auburn, a diverse community: Show of more color.” The Auburn Reporter,
Aug 12, 2011. Accessed online October 2014, http://www.auburn-reporter.com/news/127490453.html
October 2014 2
Page 75 of 160
AUBURN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
OUTREACH OBJECTIVES AND FINDINGS
• Hispanic community: Event at Continental Village apartment complex. After an initial meeting
with the property manager, we arranged a weekend event to set up canopies and tables, and the
manager would arrange to provide a taco lunch to residents. We distributed Spanish flyers a week
before the event and also brought an interpreter from Dynamic Language. We learned from this
event to be prepared to ask questions in a way that is most comfortable for the community. In this
case, residents were more comfortable answering questions in a small group discussion. We used a
flip chart and relied on the interpreter to translate the questions to the residents. We had about
thirty residents, a mix of children and adults, who attended the event. The apartment manager was
very important in the success of this event. He helped to arrange lunch, helped spread the word to
residents about the event, and provided assistance with equipment (tables, chairs).
RESULTS
While the survey questions were focused on housing and neighborhood needs and concerns, residents
expressed thoughts and concerns about other needs or issues that they thought the City could address.
Some cross-cutting themes that emerged from these targeted outreach events include:
• In general, residents are satisfied with city services and local amenities (health, commercial,
recreational) and would recommend Auburn as a place to live for family and friends. In general, we
heard positive feedback about Auburn as a community and as a place to live.
• Both ethnic communities and the senior community have strong community ties- these strong
community bonds also attract other families and friends to Auburn.
• Participants in the outreach did not express significant concern about housing conditions. In general,
affordability was a more pressing concern among participants.
• In areas that need improvement, public safety was an expressed concern, with some participants
describing activity they have witnessed such as drug selling, vandalism, youth gangs, and violence.
There is also concern for pedestrian safety, particularly in the Hispanic community where many
children play outside in areas with cars. Some felt that there were not enough youth activities at
affordable levels which may solve some of these issues.
• Many participants, particularly those in the Hispanic community, want to get more involved with the
City but either don’t know how to or feel that the language barrier is a challenge.
• There is also some general concern over affordability issues. For example, a few residents in the
Russian speaking community expressed a desire to be homeowners. Some senior participants feel
that assisted living is expensive for them as they are on limited incomes in retirement.
FUTURE EFFORTS
Contacts were initiated with the Asian and Pacific Islander communities, but developing activities
proved to be difficult in the timeframe. BERK intends to try to reach at least one of the target Asian or
Pacific Islander community through phone interviews or an in person meeting prior to the conclusion of
the Housing Element Update process.
October 2014 3 Page 76 of 160
AUBURN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
OUTREACH OBJECTIVES AND FINDINGS
Attachments
A. Outreach Summary: Senior Population
B. Outreach Summary: Russian Speaking Population
C. Outreach Summary: Hispanic Community
D. Frequently Asked Questions
E. General Housing Survey
F. Senior Housing Survey
G. Short Form Questions
H. Continental Village Flyer
October 2014 4 Page 77 of 160
APPENDIX A
AUBURN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Outreach to Senior Citizens
Outreach at Auburn Senior Center
Friday, September 26, 2014
11:00am - 12:30pm
Participants
• 18 total participants, including 3 staff/volunteers (2 of whom were
Auburn residents over the age of 55)
OUTREACH SUMMARY
In general, respondents at the senior center were satisfied with their current housing needs and the
services available to them in Auburn. Most participants were satisfied with the range of housing options
available to them. Many expressed concern or dismay at the cost while others felt that Auburn was an
affordable place to retire. The majority of interviewees consisted of longtime Auburn residents and
would like to continue to live in their current housing (mostly single family homes) in Auburn for the
near future (next 3-5 years). Respondents most often cited being close to family and friends, access to
services, activities for seniors to do, and size of the community as reasons why they like living in Auburn
and would continue to stay.
Additional observations show that Auburn’s Senior Center even attracts many individuals from outside
the City, who think that Auburn’s Senior Center services are better than their cities’ services, or because
they have friends here.
In areas where the City could improve, respondents felt that there needed to be more affordable
housing options that are a good size, easy to maintain, and have features that support independent
living for seniors (ramps, etc.). There were also several participants who voiced concern over public
safety, noting that youth gangs, vandalism and theft were a problem.
SURVEY QUESTIONS
Length of time in Auburn.
Length of time in Auburn ranged from 8 to 58 years.
• Two people did not currently live in Auburn. One was originally from Auburn and looking to move
back and the other had lived in Auburn but moved to be closer to her husband’s care facility. She
came to the Senior Activity Center because that is where her friends were.
• Seven people had lived in Auburn for more than 20 years.
What do you like the most about where you live?
Comments about Auburn or the community
In general, participants were satisfied with the services and opportunities available to them in Auburn.
Attributes or qualities that were specifically mentioned include:
September 2014 A-1 Page 78 of 160
AUBURN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
OUTREACH TO SENIOR CITIZENS
• Access to social service s and amenities. Seniors emphasized that everything is nearby so they didn’t
have to drive too far. This includes medical services, banking options (with actual tellers), and a
variety of grocery stores.
• Many services are close to one another so you can run multiple errands in a single stop.
• Auburn was said to be a nice community…it is not too big and not too small. They liked the size of
the community and its slower pace than Seattle.
• Auburn had a true downtown, a sense of place and a city center. The downtown area is wheel-chair
accessible.
o At least one senior was looking to move into a new apartment in the downtown area.
• Many liked that their family and friends live close by.
• There are a lot of things for seniors to do, and there are good services for seniors.
Most participants were satisfied with the range of housing options available to them, but many
expressed concern or dismay at the cost.
• There are some quality assisted-living options, but they are far too expensive for any ordinary
person. Prices can range from $4,000 to $10,000 a month.
• Many of the women were struggling to balance meeting the current needs of their husbands while
maintaining long-term security for themselves. They note that even if you had a middle class career
and were able to save; at $10,000 a month those savings diminish very quickly. Participants
described this conundrum as “scary.”
What type of home do you current reside in?
• Most participants lived in single-family homes.
• Three participants lived in attached housing. At least one person had recently “downsized” to an
apartment and one was looking to downsize to an apartment. Both these individuals sold (or are
selling) there single family home in another jurisdiction and are moving to Auburn to be closer to
their family or social networks.
• Four people lived in mobile homes. One person lived in a mobile home in a 55+ community. She
liked the housing option because it provided privacy with a sense of community and close
neighbors.
• One man commented that he bought his house on 4 acres because he wanted the privacy, but now
it was becoming too much to maintain.
• One senior lived in a duplex.
Where would you like to live in the next 3-5 years?
• Most participants wished to stay in Auburn in their current home. Many answered that the wish to
stay in their current home as long as possible.
• One was looking to move into one of the senior apartments in downtown Auburn.
• One felt she would have to downsize from her single family home due to rising medical costs for her
husband.
• One was seeking to move to something that required less maintenance. This couple is considering
moving to Oregon to be closer to family.
September 2014 A-2 Page 79 of 160
AUBURN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
OUTREACH TO SENIOR CITIZENS
What supports for independent living are most needed in Auburn?
• Trash removal.
• Checking in on the elderly.
• The home repair programs were good, but their income limitations were too limiting. The
combination of very limited or fixed incomes coupled with rising medical or care costs mean that
some older adults may have assets but still cannot afford to make housing repairs.
• Participants volunteered positive comments and shared their personal experiences with the fire
department and the police department. First responders were said to be helpful, responsive, and
respectful.
• While many noted there were a lot of services available, they also noted it was confusing and
difficult to know all what was available. Participants suggested producing a pamphlet or detailed
directory of all the services available.
Auburn housing, neighborhood, and services that need improvement:
• Affordable housing options. While there are some options, for the most part rents are too high.
o Disperse low income housing/residents among all Auburn’s neighborhoods so that there is not a
designated low income area, and that there is more intermixing of the population.
• Need more housing options with ramps and other accessible features.
• More housing options with secured parking.
• More ‘nice’ restaurants like Olive Garden, a lot of fast food options but not many other options for
eating out.
• More shopping centers like Target.
• Transportation options. Some note that bus services is limited in some areas, that taxis are not
reliable, and that there are van services but you must call and schedule up to 3 weeks in advance.
Some felt transportation options had been better in the past, but that services had been getting cut.
• Safety. One interviewee commented on the problem of young gangs and associated violence,
vandalism and graffiti
Auburn housing, neighborhood, and services that are good:
• Community and social opportunities including the Senior Activity Center, though prices can be
limiting for some. Some participants emphasize that Auburn has “a lot” of opportunities in this
category.
• The lunch program was described as “awesome” because it gets people out of their home and is
affordable. Some seniors come to the lunch program every day.
• One man brought his wife regularly because the social environment encouraged her to eat.
• Many participants used the library.
• The YMCA was a valued service, but at least one person had to give it up so they could care for their
spouse.
• Access to hospitals and health services.
• Parks and recreation opportunities.
September 2014 A-3 Page 80 of 160
AUBURN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
OUTREACH TO SENIOR CITIZENS
Auburn housing, neighborhood, and services that are average:
• Public safety received mixed reviews. Participants were happy with the quality of service of first
responders in the City of Auburn, but many had concerns over public safety. Many participants had
personal experiences with car theft and had witnessed drug transactions.
September 2014 A-4 Page 81 of 160
APPENDIX B
AUBURN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Outreach to Russian Speakers
(Slovak, Russian, and Ukrainian groups)
OUTREACH AT MARVEL DELI
615 C St SW, Auburn
Monday, October 20, 2014, 9:00 – 10:30 am
Number of interviews: 9 adults
• 7 answered the short general questions
• 2 answered the general housing questionnaire
Summary
On Monday October 20, 2014 from 9:00am to 10:30 am, BERK Consulting held an outreach event at
Marvel Deli on C Street in Auburn, supported by a Russian-speaking interpreter from Dynamic Language
Translation Services. The team set up a table in the café area at the front of the store, and conducted an
intercept survey asking shoppers if they had time to talk about the City’s plans for housing and their
thoughts on their neighborhoods. The survey questions were prompts for the discussion, and two forms
were available, a short one page form and a more detailed form, both having similar questions about
their homes, housing preferences, neighborhoods, and services. The majority of participants were more
comfortable answering short discussion questions than filling out the survey questions.
In general, respondents were all residents of Auburn. They were mostly satisfied with their current
housing needs, living in Auburn and the City services provided to their community. Few had pressing
housing concerns. The most common housing concern was a desire to own a home. However, it is
unknown what challenges or barriers they face in becoming homeowners.
The majority of respondents had a positive perception of Auburn as a good place for their family and
would recommend Auburn to family and friends as a place to live. Some expressed that they moved to
Auburn because family and friends live in the City, and it was the first American city they lived in since
immigrating to the United States.
Their desired features in a neighborhood included being near family and friends, good schools, parks,
religious centers, and safety. Important places in their community include Marvel Deli, schools for their
children, religious centers, and shopping areas (Super Mall). Many respondents felt the City was doing a
good job in the services it provides, but could improve roads in their neighborhood.
Intercept Survey Questions and Answers
What is your perception of Auburn?
• Good/nice (6)
• I like Auburn (1)
• No response (1)
October 2014 B-1 Page 82 of 160
AUBURN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
OUTREACH TO RUSSIAN SPEAKERS
(SLOVAK, RUSSIAN, AND UKRAINIAN GROUPS)
What is your greatest housing need?
• I would like to own a home (3)
• Home repairs (1)
• None (4)
What are your desired features in a neighborhood?
• Good place to live
• Near family and friends (2)
• Parks (3)
• Religious centers (2)
• Near good schools for children
• Safety
Would you recommend a relative to move to Auburn?
• Yes (6) – also depends on neighborhood
• Not necessarily (1)
• No response (1)
Why do you live in Auburn?
• Strong Ukrainian community. One respondent said his sponsors were from the Ukraine and lived in
Auburn so he moved to the city in 1991.
Do you envision your children living here and raising a family?
• Yes, my children live here (2)
• No response (1)
What is the right role for the City in property maintenance?
• Streetscape (2)
• Roads (2)
• Same as today (1)
• Parks (2)
• Safety (1)
What services can the City bring into your neighborhood? What can be improved?
• Roads (3)
• More parks (1)
• Parking (1)
• Safety (1)
• Everything is good as is (2)
October 2014 B-2 Page 83 of 160
AUBURN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
OUTREACH TO RUSSIAN SPEAKERS
(SLOVAK, RUSSIAN, AND UKRAINIAN GROUPS)
PHONE INTERVIEW
Lyudmila Shornal, Real Estate Agent Better Properties, Lakewood
October X, 2014
Phone: 206-919-9678
Email: Lyudashor@gmail.com
Ukrainian population housing typology preferences
• Want little more privacy, big lots that can accommodate activities like gardening, and growing
vegetables
• Don’t want just a cookie-cutter house
• Big yard is very important – single family detached house is preferred typology
• Affordability is a factor
Ukrainian population neighborhood preferences:
• Prefer to live up the hill, not in the valley- Lea Hill, West Hill in Auburn. They would prefer living on
the hill because of possible flooding, natural hazards, and it’s more prestigious.
• Ukrainian community is spread out in Auburn; they are in Lakeland Hill and Lea Hill. They are not
trying to live next to other Ukrainian families.
• Considerations also include that the home is close to a freeway or road to get to work, getting
around
• Parks are nice but not a priority
• School is also nice but not a priority
October 2014 B-3 Page 84 of 160
Page 85 of 160
APPENDIX C
AUBURN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Outreach to Hispanic Community
OUTREACH AT CONTINENTAL VILLAGE
560 21st Street SE, Auburn
Saturday, October 25, 2014, 11:00 am – 1:30 pm
Number of attendees: Approximately 30 (adults and children)
• Approximately 15 adults participated in a group discussion
• Four adults answered the general housing survey (1 couple and 2 singles filled out a form)
SUMMARY
On Saturday October 25, 2014 from 11:00am to 1:30pm, BERK Consulting held an outreach event at the
basketball court in Continental Village Apartments at 560 21st Street SE in Auburn. Jesus Ostos, the
property manager, arranged tables, tents, and chairs and provided tacos to residents. A Spanish-
speaking interpreter from Dynamic Language helped to facilitate the event. Participants were more
comfortable speaking Spanish with the interpreter and gave responses as a small group discussion while
BERK staff took notes on their responses on a flip chart. A few adults filled out the general housing
questionnaire.
In general, the participants moved to Auburn because it is quiet, affordable, near friends and near their
needs. They envision their children staying in Auburn too as they grow up. They didn’t express specific
personal housing needs, but primarily expressed concerns about their needs for safety and security –
safety from crime, safety from street traffic, and a great desire to have education and recreation
activities for their children, and to have opportunities to volunteer to improve their neighborhood. They
would like to participate more with the City and to instill a love for the community in their children, but
they would appreciate an invitation to participate and more information on events, services, and
meetings, and translation capabilities in Spanish.
October 2014 C-1 Page 86 of 160
AUBURN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
OUTREACH TO HISPANIC COMMUNITY
Small Group Discussion
Why do you live in Auburn?
• Quiet neighborhood
• Affordable small town
• Close to needs
• To be near friends
Do you envision your children living here and raising a family?
• Yes – would like children to be able to live in Auburn.
What is your greatest housing need?
• Residents at the meeting all live in the Continental Plaza. No particular housing need was
mentioned. There was greater discussion about needs in the neighborhood, community services,
recreation and activities for kids, and ways the community can help volunteer.
• Other comment:
o Continental Plaza has a good manager, but he is one person.
What are your desired features in a neighborhood?
• Many apartment complexes concentration leads to crime and violence.
o Separate the complexes so there are not too many together.
How would you rate Auburn on service qualities (housing, health, community and social services,
transportation, public safety, parks)?
• Services – regular/average in general
• Security – needs improvement
• See specific concerns about traffic speed, security, recreation, education, and others below.
What services can the City bring into your neighborhood? What can be improved?
• Need speed bumps on 22nd Street.
o Question: How can the community request the speed bumps?
o Answer: City Public Works Department manages roads. Write to City Council or Mayor. You can
write in Spanish.
• Need more signals
• More security from police – regular visits.
• Video security for complex and neighborhood.
• Enforce against drug dealing.
• More community programs.
• Need more health clinics and access to affordable services; need information on insurance and more
access to public health
October 2014 C-2 Page 87 of 160
AUBURN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
OUTREACH TO HISPANIC COMMUNITY
• More activities for kids and teens after school – summer schools, sports, busy activities.
• Avoid violence – activities for young would help.
• City should involve teens 12 – 16 years old in summertime.
o Avoid exposure to bad influences.
o Families/parents work – need programs.
• More help with affordable education after school.
• On 22nd Street, cars stay parked too long, can they be removed?
• More access to legal services to help obtain jobs – what happens when losing a husband/parent who
had legal papers to work?
• Not enough support from DSHS – so many asking.
• All residents here pay taxes – need support.
• Need help to be self-sufficient; not just money, need access to education, jobs, technical help (skills,
like car repair, etc.)
• Need inside activities in winter, such as indoor soccer; keep these affordable.
• Neighborhood night out – have for block, welcome in Spanish.
• Bilingual Senior Center.
• Office with information on community events.
• Need Hispanic mass/church; Spanish language services for whole family.
• Participate more at church – Spanish services.
Does your family use the Les Gove Community Campus? What facilities do you or your family use
at Les Gove Community Campus? What kinds of uses would you like to see that aren’t currently
provided at Les Gove Community Campus?
• Les Gove, yes use library and center – need college students to help community become more
involved.
What age-groups within your family would use a new Youth Center or Community Center?
• Yes – youth center welcome.
How do you want to hear from the City of Auburn?
• Communication with residents.
• More public meetings like this event.
• Be welcoming; provide translation services; don’t judge whether someone has the appearance of
citizens or not.
• Spanish translation desired – feel included.
• City should help residents feel part of the community.
• More information to new residents.
• Invite community to help.
October 2014 C-3 Page 88 of 160
AUBURN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
OUTREACH TO HISPANIC COMMUNITY
• Encourage volunteers in the community.
• More leadership opportunities to instill love for the community.
What does the City want to hear from us? What can we do for the community?
• Give opinion at City Council meetings.
• Volunteer with the City on neighborhood improvements, parks, schools, etc.
o Want to help quality of life of kids.
o Most important = kids.
o Help kids have love for the community.
• People have the will to help their community, but need to know how.
• We are eager to help improve the neighborhood.
• Have incentives for residents, and especially kids to participate. Such as have prizes for litter clean
up; could have more motivation.
Long Questionnaire
Four participants (one couple and two single persons) filled out three questionnaires.
Are you a resident of Auburn? If yes, how long have you lived in Auburn?
• Yes: 3
• Lived in Auburn between 5 and 18 years.
How many people are in your household?
• Four (2)
• Six (1)
What is your age (ex: 34 or 30s)?
• 20, 29, 39, 44
What is/are your ethnicity/ethnicities?
• Hispanic; Latino; Mexican
What type of home do you reside in currently? (Select only one that best describes your home.)
• Apartment in a multi-unit building - 3
Who owns your home?
• I live with family / friends - 2
• I rent my home - 1
Do you currently need physical or financial assistance with any of the following? (Select all that apply.)
• Home repairs (to building) - 1
Do you find your current housing satisfactory? Why or why not? (Select one and describe why.)
• Yes, because (2) “Regular” and “We keep everything fixed and up to date”
• No, because (1) “Not enough security”
October 2014 C-4 Page 89 of 160
AUBURN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
OUTREACH TO HISPANIC COMMUNITY
What are your desired features in a housing unit? (Select all that apply.)
• Has yard or private open space - 1
• Has a washer and dryer within the unit - 2
• Other (please describe) - 1 “Washer and dryers that work”
Where would you like to live in the next 3-5 years? (Select only one.)
• Stay in Auburn but relocate to a new home - 3
If you would prefer to relocate to a new home, which of the follow housing types would best meet
your needs? (Pick your top 3 choices.)
• Stay in own home - 1
• Single family house - 1
If you prefer to relocate, what are the reasons for moving? (Select all that apply.)
• Lower crime/more safety - 2
• Other – 1, Closer to work
Why do you live in Auburn? (Select all that apply.)
• I grew up here - 1
• My family and friends live here - 1
• Access to commercial services and businesses (shopping, grocery) - 2
How would you rate Auburn on the following housing, neighborhood, and service qualities? (Check
one for each quality.)
Quality Good Average Needs Improvement
Affordable housing options 1 1
Accessible housing features (e.g.
ramps, one-story layout, wide
doorways)
1 1
Access to hospitals and health
services 1 1
Community and social
opportunities 1 1
Transportation options 2 1:
Speed bumps on 22nd.
Public safety 1 1
Parks and recreation 1
Other
October 2014 C-5 Page 90 of 160
AUBURN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
OUTREACH TO HISPANIC COMMUNITY
What are your desired features in a neighborhood? Rank these types of places in order of importance
to you. (1=most important.)
• Only One Respondent answered this question. This is their ranking.
3 Has or near parks or recreational sites
4 Has or near social services (library, senior center, community center)
1 Has or near school
2 Has or near religious site
5 Has or near commercial services (grocery store, etc.)
6 Has or near health services (hospital, medical center)
Would you recommend a relative or friend to move to Auburn?
• Yes - 2
• No - 0
Do you envision your children living here and raising a family?
• Yes - 2
• No - 0
Does your family use the Les Gove Community Campus?
• Yes - 1
• No (skip next question) - 1
What facilities do you or your family use at Les Gove Community Campus?
• Discovery Playground -1
What kinds of uses would you like to see that aren’t currently provided at Les Gove Community
Campus? (See list above for current uses.)
• No responses
What age-groups within your family would use a new Youth Center or Community Center? (Select all
that apply.)
• Children (6-11) - 1 - More advertising that the community center/youth centers are free?
How do you want to hear from the City of Auburn?
• Mailings - 1
• Other: 1 – talk and speak
October 2014 C-6 Page 91 of 160
APPENDIX D
AUBURN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a housing element?
A housing element is a plan that addresses a community’s current and projected needs for housing, including
housing variety, attainability, and preservation.
Why is the City updating its housing element?
The Washington Growth Management Act (GMA) requires cities and counties to include a housing element
in their comprehensive plans. A housing element is one of many required chapters of a comprehensive
plan. Each community in King County, including Auburn, must update its Comprehensive Plan by June 30,
2015.
Why is housing an important topic for Auburn’s future?
The housing element can serve as a useful management tool to meet changing community needs for
housing, as well as to address land use, economic development, transportation, environmental and other
concerns.
• A variety of housing choices can meet the needs of Auburn’s residents at all ages and affordability
levels, help residents maintain and retain their homes, and promote services and amenities that
improve neighborhood livability.
• Well planned housing can support Auburn’s economic goals by attracting residents to live near their
jobs, and by serving as a source of customers to support commercial districts.
• Housing in proximity to transit or mixed-use projects can help reduce the need for costly infrastructure
(e.g. roads and sewer). Housing in proximity to a variety of transportation modes can increase a
household’s disposable income and savings by reducing the cost of transportation.
• Well designed and located housing can reduce energy and water consumption, and promote healthy
lifestyles.
How can I participate in the update process?
The City of Auburn is reaching out to residents and stakeholders in fall 2014 at community events and
meetings, and providing questionnaires. Additionally, the housing element will be the subject of Planning
Commission, Human Services Commission, and City Council meetings in fall 2014 and winter and spring
2015.
How can I find out more information?
Please refer to the City of Auburn’s website for more information and a schedule of
events: http://www.auburnwa.gov/doing_business/community_development/planning/comprehensive_pl
an.htm
To speak to City staff about the project, you may also contact: Elizabeth F. Chamberlain, AICP, Planning and
Design Services Manager, Community Development Services, echamberlain@auburnwa.gov, 253-931-3092
September 2014 D-1 Page 92 of 160
Page 93 of 160
APPENDIX E
CITY OF AUBURN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
GENERAL HOUSING SURVEY
Instructions
Thank you for taking the time to complete the Auburn Housing Survey. The goal of this survey is to
gather your ideas and concerns about housing needs and opportunities in Auburn as part of an update
to the city's comprehensive plan housing element and to inform future housing policy.
This is a unique opportunity to let your voice be heard; your input is a crucial part of the planning
process! The information collected will be considered by the City of Auburn. All information collected
will be kept confidential and anonymous.
This survey is being administered by City of Auburn Community Development Services. To speak to City
staff about the project, you may also contact: Elizabeth F. Chamberlain, AICP, Planning and Design
Services Manager, Community Development Services, echamberlain@auburnwa.gov, 253-931-3092.
PART 1: ABOUT YOU
Are you a resident of Auburn? (Circle one.)
Yes No
If yes, how long have you lived in Auburn?
How many people are in your household?
What is your age (ex: 34 or 30s)?
What is/are your ethnicity/ethnicities?
PART 2: CURRENT HOUSING PREFERENCES
What type of home do you reside in currently? (Select only one that best describes your home.)
Single family house (detached)
Apartment in a multi-unit building
Condominium in a multi-unit building
Attached townhouse or row house
Mobile home
Retirement community, senior housing
Assisted living (nursing home, housing
with health or social services)
Other
Who owns your home?
I own my home
I live with family / friends
I rent my home
E-1 Page 94 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN HOUSING SURVEY
Do you currently need physical or financial assistance with any of the following? (Select all that apply.)
Home repairs (to building)
Home upkeep (landscaping or other maintenance)
Snow or ice removal
Trash removal
Other: __________________
Do you find your current housing satisfactory? Why or why not? (Select one and describe why.)
Yes, because
No, because
What are your desired features in a housing unit? (Select all that apply.)
Number of desired bedrooms:_____________
Number of desired bathrooms:____________
Has covered parking
Has yard or private open space
Has a washer and dryer within the unit
Other (please describe)
Where would you like to live in the next 3-5 years? (Select only one.)
Stay in Auburn and stay in current home (skip next 2 questions)
Stay in Auburn but relocate to a new home
Move outside of Auburn
If you would prefer to relocate to a new home, which of the follow housing types would best meet
your needs? (Pick your top 3 choices.)
Stay in own home
Single family house
Multi-unit apartment building
Multi-unit condominium building
Attached cluster housing
Retirement community/ assisted living
with senior only units (housing with
health or social services)
Mobile home
Move in with family or relatives
Other
E-2 Page 95 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN HOUSING SURVEY
If you prefer to relocate, what are the reasons for moving? (Select all that apply.)
No longer able to maintain home
Reduced living costs
Better weather/climate
Closer to family
Access to hospitals/health services
Accessible features not currently in
home
Access to community and social
activities
Lower crime/more safety
Access to transportation services
Other _________________________
PART 3: COMMUNITY / NEIGHBORHOOD PREFERENCES
Why do you live in Auburn? (Select all that apply.)
I grew up here
My family and friends live here
Community character and atmosphere
Sense of community/supportive
community
Quality city services
Good schools
Access to commercial services and
businesses (shopping, grocery)
Beautiful natural surroundings
Affordability
Safe place to live
Access to jobs
Good location for my business
Recreational amenities
Convenient location
Transportation choices- options to use
bus, rail, bike, or walk
Other:
How would you rate Auburn on the following housing, neighborhood, and service qualities? (Check
one for each quality.)
Quality Good Average Needs Improvement
Affordable housing options
Accessible housing features (e.g.
ramps, one-story layout, wide
doorways)
Access to hospitals and health
services
Community and social
opportunities
Transportation options
Public safety
Parks and recreation
Other
E-3 Page 96 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN HOUSING SURVEY
What are your desired features in a neighborhood? Rank these types of places in order of importance
to you. (1=most important.)
— Has or near parks or recreational sites
— Has or near social services (library, senior center, community center)
— Has or near school
— Has or near religious site
— Has or near commercial services (grocery store, etc.)
— Has or near health services (hospital, medical center)
— Other___________________________________________________________________
Would you recommend a relative or friend to move to Auburn?
Yes
No
Do you envision your children living here and raising a family?
Yes
No
PART 4: PARKS AND RECREATION
Does your family use the Les Gove Community Campus?
Yes
No (skip next question)
What facilities do you or your family use at Les Gove Community Campus?
Multipurpose building
Gymnasium (open gym basketball and volleyball, indoor playground, etc.)
Climbing wall
Community facilities
Discovery Playground
Bocce Courts
Rotary spray playground (summer only)
Horseshoe pits
Half-mile (800 meters) Loop Trail
Outdoor Fitness Equipment
E-4 Page 97 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN HOUSING SURVEY
Softball fields
Other:
What kinds of uses would you like to see that aren’t currently provided at Les Gove Community
Campus? (See list above for current uses.)
What age-groups within your family would use a new Youth Center or Community Center? (Select all
that apply.)
Preschool (3-5)
Children (6-11)
Young Teens and Teenagers (12-17)
Young adults (18-24)
Adults (25-64)
Seniors (65 and over)
PART 5: ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
How do you want to hear from the City of Auburn?
Mailings
Online- through email or on website
In-person visits
Other: ______________________________________
Please provide any additional comments or feedback below.
Thank you for taking the time to participate in our survey!
For more information on the comprehensive plan update, visit:
www.auburnwa.gov/doing_business/community_development/planning/comprehensive_plan.htm
E-5 Page 98 of 160
APPENDIX F
CITY OF AUBURN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
SENIOR HOUSING QUESTIONNAIRE
INSTRUCTIONS
Thank you for responding to the Auburn Senior Housing Questionnaire
The City of Auburn wants to hear your ideas and concerns about housing and quality of life in
Auburn to guide the updating of the City’s goals and policies described in the housing chapter
of its Comprehensive Plan.
The information collected will be used by the City of Auburn. All information will be kept
confidential and anonymous.
This questionnaire is being administered by City of Auburn Community Development Services.
To speak to City staff about the project, you may also contact: Elizabeth F. Chamberlain, AICP,
Planning and Design Services Manager, Community Development
Services, echamberlain@auburnwa.gov, 253-931-3092.
PART 1: ABOUT YOU
What is your age?
55-59 years
60-64
65-74
75-84
85+
How long have you lived in Auburn?
Less than 1 year
1-5 years
5-10 years
10-20 years
More than 20 years
What do you think about Auburn? Why do you choose to live here?
What do you like most about where you live? (Check all that apply)
My family and friends live nearby
My neighborhood and community
Access to social services and amenities
Access to health services
Access to commercial services (shopping
centers, grocery stores)
Parks and recreation opportunities
Cost of living is affordable
Transportation options
Other (please describe)
F-1 Page 99 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN HOUSINGE ELEMENT UPDATE
SENIOR HOUSING QUESTIONNAIRE
What type of home do you reside in currently? (Choose the one that best describes your
current home.)
Single family house
Apartment or Condominium
Retirement community, senior housing
Assisted living (nursing home, housing with health or social services)
Mobile home
Other
Where would you like to live in the next 3-5 years? (Rank by preference.)
Stay in Auburn and stay in current home
Stay in Auburn but relocate to a new home
Move outside of Auburn
If you would prefer to relocate to a new home, which of the follow housing
types would best meet your needs? (Pick your top 3 choices)
Stay in own home
Single family house
Apartment building
Condominium building
Retirement community
Assisted living (housing with health
or social services)
Mobile home
Move in with family or relatives
_____________________________
In choosing where to live, what community amenities are most important to
you? (Rank in order of preference, 1 = most preferred, 7 = least preferred/not important)
— Near my immediate and extended family members
— In or near my current neighborhood
— Near commercial amenities (grocery stores, shopping, etc.)
— Near a senior center
— Near religious activities
— Near recreational activities, parks and open space
— Near health services, caregivers, medical facilities
PART 2: AUBURN’S HOUSING NEEDS
Is Auburn a good place to live after retirement? Why or why not?
F-2 Page 100 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN HOUSINGE ELEMENT UPDATE
SENIOR HOUSING QUESTIONNAIRE
What supports for independent living are most needed in Auburn?
(Select all that apply.)
Home repairs (to building)
Home upkeep (landscaping or other
maintenance)
Snow or ice removal
Trash removal
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
Which of the following services or amenities does Auburn need more of?
(Rank in order of importance. 1=most important.)
— Parks or recreational sites
— Social services (library, senior center, community center)
— School
— Religious site
— Commercial services (grocery store, etc.)
— Health services (hospital, medical center)
— Other___________________________________________________________________
How would you rate Auburn on the following housing, neighborhood, and service attributes? (Check one for each attribute.)
Attributes Good Average Needs Improvement
Affordable housing options
Accessible housing features (e.g.
ramps, one-story layout, wide
doorways)
Access to hospitals and health
services
Community and social
opportunities
Transportation options
Public safety
Parks and recreation
Other
If you identified areas of improvement above, do you have comments to share?
F-3 Page 101 of 160
CITY OF AUBURN HOUSINGE ELEMENT UPDATE
SENIOR HOUSING QUESTIONNAIRE
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Please provide any additional comments or feedback below.
Thank you for taking the time to participate in our survey!
For more information on the comprehensive plan update, visit:
http://www.auburnwa.gov/doing_business/community_development/planning/comprehensive_plan
.htm
F-4 Page 102 of 160
APPENDIX G
CITY OF AUBURN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
GENERAL DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
Ask about the individual.
Notes about interviewee (age, sex, ethnicity)
How many people in your household?
How long have you lived in Auburn?
Where did you live before Auburn?
Describe current housing conditions.
What kind of home do you live in? Do you own or rent?
Are you satisfied with your current housing conditions? Why or why not?
Describe ideal housing conditions.
If you had the opportunity, what would be your ideal housing type? (How many bedrooms? How many
bathrooms? Do you need a yard? Garage?)
Describe your community.
Why do you choose to live in Auburn? What do you like most about it?
What are important places in your community? (ex: religious centers, schools, stores, restaurants). Ask for
specifics if possible.
How would you rate Auburn on the following services? Good, Average, or Needs Improvement regarding:
a) affordable housing, b) accessible housing features (e.g. ramps, single story), c) access to hospitals/health
services, d) community and social opportunities, e) transportation options, f) public safety, g) parks and
recreation, h) other ______________?)
What can be improved in your neighborhood? What services can the City of Auburn bring into your
neighborhood?
Will you continue to live in Auburn in the next 3-5 years? Why or why not?
Would you recommend your family and friends to move here?
How do you want to hear from the City? (Personal visits? Phone calls? Mail? Attend public meetings?)
Parks and Recreation opportunities in Auburn.
Do you use the Les Gove Campus? For what activities?
Would anyone in your family use a new Youth Center? If yes, what kind of activities would they want to see at
the Youth Center?
1 Page 103 of 160
¿Cuáles son sus mayores necesidades y
preocupaciones con respecto a la vivienda?
¿Tiene ideas que aportar sobre la calidad de vida en
su vecindario?
REUNIÓN COMUNITARIA
La Ciudad de Auburn desea escuchar sus ideas y preocupaciones sobre
la vivienda y la calidad de vida en Auburn a fin de guiar la actualización de
los objetivos y las políticas de la Ciudad que se describen en el capítulo
de vivienda de su Plan Integral. ¡Asista a la reunión para obtener más
información y aportar sus comentarios!
Sábado 25 de octubre, de 11:00 a.m. a 12:30 p.m.
Continental Village 560 21st St SE, Auburn WA
Reúnase en la cancha de básquetbol
¡Se ofrecerán tacos!
PARA MÁS INFORMACIÓN, PÓNGASE EN CONTACTO CON:
¡Está invitado!
Elizabeth Chamberlain
Gerente de Servicios de Planificación y
Desarrollo, Ciudad de Auburn
echamberlain@auburnwa.gov
253-931-3092
Jesus Ostos
Gerente de la Propiedad
Continental Village
206-715-0929
?
Para obtener más información sobre la actualización del plan integral, visite:
www.auburnwa.gov/doing_business/community_development/planning/comprehensive_plan.htm
PLAN INTEGRAL
ACTUALIZACIÓN DEL
ELEMENTO DE VIVIENDA
Page 104 of 160
What are your greatest housing needs and concerns?
Do you have ideas about the quality of life in your
neighborhood?
COMMUNITY MEETING
The City of Auburn wants to hear your ideas and concerns about
housing and quality of life in Auburn to guide the updating of
the City’s goals and policies described in the housing chapter of
its Comprehensive Plan. Attend the meeting to learn more and
provide your feedback!
Saturday, October 25, 11:00 am -12:30 pm
Continental Village 560 21st St SE, Auburn WA
Gather in the basketball court.
Tacos provided!
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
You’re Invited!
Elizabeth Chamberlain
Planning & Development Services Manager
City of Auburn
echamberlain@auburnwa.gov
253-931-3092
Jesus Ostos
Property Manager
Continental Village
206-715-0929
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
?
For more information on the comprehensive plan update, visit:
www.auburnwa.gov/doing_business/community_development/planning/comprehensive_plan.htm
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Page 105 of 160
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Amendments to Title 5 Business Licensing (Tate) (10 Minutes)
Date:
October 15, 2018
Department:
Community Development
Attachments:
Attachment A - Ordinance No. 6692
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 6692
Exhibit B to Ordinance No. 6692
Attachment B - Engrossed Hous e Bill 2005
Attachment C - AWC Webpage Article
Attachment D - Model Bus iness License
Thres hold
Attachment E - Side by Side Comparis on
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
Background Summary:
On August 13, 2018, during a City Council Study Session, staff provided an overview of EHB
2005, which requires that the City of Auburn modify its business license regulations for the
purpose of creating a uniform definition of what it means to engage in business in Washington
State. EHB applies to all cities that administer a business license program. City staff
informed City Council that the Association of Washington Cities was charged with developing
the model ordinance and that cities were required to adopt this language by January 1, 2019.
The intent of EHB 2005 is to establish a consistent definition and process for businesses to
operate under which is designed to streamline business licensing throughout the State.
During the August 13, 2018 study session staff indicated that a draft ordinance would be
presented to City Council during the October 22, 2018 study session. Ordinance No. 6692 is
attached for City Council review and consideration.
EHB 2005 Overview:
The Washington State Legislature enacted Engrossed House Bill (EHB) 2005 during the
2017 legislative session which then went into effect on July 23, 2017 (EHB 2005 is included
as Attachment B). The purpose of EHB 2005 was to help simplify the administration of
municipal general business licenses, which is intended to enhance the business climate in
Washington State.
Generally speaking, EHB 2005 establishes two mandates directed at local government. Each
mandate has a different compliance deadline. The two mandates are described as follows:
1. By January 1, 2019, municipalities are required to amend how their local code defines
“engaging in business.” This definition is important because it determines the types of
Page 106 of 160
businesses that are required to obtain a business license. Currently, every City has its
own definition for what it means to engage in business within its boundaries. The
purpose of this legislative mandate is to provide the business community with a
standardized definition in order to level the playing field between communities and to
remove the complexity for a business that is trying to understand the different sets of
rules within all of the municipalities that they operate.
2. By 2022 (or earlier as described later) municipalities are required to administer their
business license program through the State’s Business Licensing System. The
purpose of this requirement is to ensure that the business community is provided a one-
stop shop for obtaining and renewing all of their business licenses statewide. Instead
of a franchise restaurant having to obtain or renew 40 separate business licenses in 40
separate communities, this mandate will allow that business to obtain or renew through a
singular portal. The legislation does not eliminate a local municipality’s right to collect
their adopted business license fees or to remove the local municipality’s authority to
approve or deny a license. City fees are paid through the State Business License
System and transferred to the City. New applications are submitted through the State
Business License System and routed to the City for review (e.g. in the same fashion
that the State routes a liquor license application to the City before it will issue the
permit).
EHB 2005 specifically directs cities to work with the Association of Washington Cities to
develop a model ordinance that addresses item #1 above. AWC was required to complete
this process by July 1, 2018. That effort has concluded and a final model ordinance has
been distributed to the City of Auburn and others. The final model ordinance is included as
Attachment C. Attachment D is an excerpt from the AWC webpage that provides additional
information and links to other resources. This webpage provides a good summary of the
requirements, process, and other details associated with this effort.
MODIFYING T HE BUSINESS LICENSE T HRESHOLD – DEADLINE OF JANUARY 1, 2019
In Auburn, Business Licensing is administered under Title 5 of the Auburn City Code. ACC
5.10.020.A defines “Business” as follows:
“Business means all activities, occupations, trades, pursuits, professions, and matters
located within the city or within the city’s jurisdiction, with a physical presence in the
city and operated on a permanent or ongoing basis whether operated with the object of
gain, benefit, advantage or profit, or operated not for profit, to the business enterprise or
to another person, directly or indirectly; provided that ‘business’ shall not mean
governmental agencies.”
Attachment E provides a side-by-side comparison of the City’s definition of “business” and
AWC’s model language for what it means to “engage in business”. EHB 2005 will require that
the City of Auburn amend Title 5 in order to be consistent with state law.
SHIFT ING ADM INIST RAT ION OF T HE PROGRAM T O T HE ST AT E – DEADLINE OF
2022
Page 107 of 160
The State Mandate related to administration of the business license program is found under
New Section. Section 2 of EHB 2005. It reads as follows:
“Except as otherwise provided in subsection (7) of this section, a city that requires a
general business license of any person that engages in business activities within that
city must partner with the department to have such license issued, and renewed if the
city requires renewal, through the business licensing service in accordance with
chapter 19.02 RCW.”
EHB 2005 states that the deadline for partnering with the State is 2022, however, it also
states that a city may decline to partner with the State by 2022 if the city already participates in
the “online local business license and tax filing portal known as ‘FileLocal’ as of July 1, 2020.
FileLocal is an already existing licensing portal that was developed by the cities of Bellevue,
Seattle, Everett, Tacoma and Lake Forest Park. These cities developed the portal in order to
streamline administration of their B&O tax programs and to create a location where a single
business may apply for and obtain a business license within those municipalities. The
FileLocal consortium has offered Auburn and other municipalities the opportunity to
participate in this program in lieu of partnering with the State. T he City of Auburn will have
a choice as to whether it is in the City’s best interest to partner with the State or join
the FileLocal program; but that discussion and decision will not be ripe until
additional information has been collected.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Other: Planning, Legal
Councilmember:Staff:Tate
Meeting Date:October 22, 2018 Item Number:
Page 108 of 160
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6692
October 15, 2018
Page 1 of 2
ORDINANCE NO. 6692
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON RELATED TO
BUSINESS LICENSES, AMENDING DEFINITIONS,
AND AMENDING CHAPTER 5.10 OF THE AUBURN
CITY CODE
WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature adopted Engrossed House
Bill 2005 during the 2017 legislative session; and,
WHEREAS, the Bill requires, among other things, that cities who license
businesses use the same definition for “engaging in business” as provided for in
the bill.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN as follows:
Section 1. Amendment to City Code. Section 5.10.020A of the
Auburn City Code is amended as shown in Exhibit A.
Section 2. Amendment to City Code. Section 5.10.040 of the
Auburn City Code is amended as shown in Exhibit B.
Section 3. Implementation. The Mayor is authorized to implement
such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of
this legislation.
Section 3. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are
declared to be separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence,
paragraph, subdivision, section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the
application thereof to any person or circumstance shall not affect the validity of the
Page 109 of 160
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6692
October 15, 2018
Page 2 of 2
remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or
circumstances.
Section 4. Effective date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be
in force five days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided
by law.
INTRODUCED: ___________________
PASSED: ________________________
APPROVED: _____________________
________________________________
NANCY BACKUS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________________
Shawn Campbell, MMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Steven L. Gross, City Attorney
Published: _________________
Page 110 of 160
Ordinance 6692 – Exhibit A
5.10.020 Definitions.
For the purpose of this chapter and Chapter 5.15 ACC, the following terms, phrases, words and their derivations will
have the meaning given in this section.
A. “Business” means all activities, occupations, trades, pursuits, professions, and matters located within the city or
within the city’s jurisdiction, with a physical presence in the city and operated on a permanent or ongoing basis
whether operated with the object of gain, benefit, advantage or profit, or operated not for profit, to the business
enterprise or to another person, directly or indirectly; provided that “business” will not mean governmental
agencies.
B. “Business enterprise” means any entity, person, partnership, association, corporation, trust, society, or club
engaged in a business within the city of Auburn.
C. “Director” means the Director of Community Development or the Director’s designee.
D. “Department” means the city of Auburn department of planning and development.
E. “Employee” means any person employed at any business enterprise who performs any part of their duties within
the city. All officers, agents, dealers, franchisees, etc., of a corporation or business trust, and partners of a
partnership, except limited partners, are employees within this definition.
F. “Engage in business” means commencing, conducting, or continuing in business, and also the exercise of
corporate or franchise powers, as well as liquidating a business when the liquidators thereof hold themselves out
to the public as conducting such business.
G. “Licensee” means any business granted a business license.
H. “Nonprofit” means any business enterprises registered as nonprofit corporations within the state of Washington
or granted nonprofit status through the code of the Internal Revenue Service of the United States.
I. “Physical presence” means an address where the business is located. A post office box with an Auburn address
for a business is considered a physical presence.
J. “Place of business” means the physical location of the business.
K. “Business license year” means that period of time between July 1st of one year and June 30th of the following
year.
L. “Life and safety codes” mean building codes, fire codes, electrical codes and other codes of the city relating to
health, safety and related requirements for use and occupancy of buildings.
Page 111 of 160
Ordinance 6692 – Exhibit B
5.10.040 General business license required.
A. Any person desiring to establish or conduct any business enterprise or undertaking as defined in ACC 5.10.020
within the corporate limits of the city shall first apply to the business license clerk, as designated by the mayor,
for a license to conduct such business and obtain such license as approved by the city. The application shall be
upon a form furnished by the business license clerk on which the applicant shall state the business name,
address, and telephone number; the owner’s date of birth and government -issued identification number (e.g.,
driver’s license number); the nature of the business activity or activities in which the applica nt desires to
engage; the place where the business will be conducted; the number of employees, and the name of the contact
person along with an address, date of birth, government -issued identification number, and telephone number,
and the business identification number issued by the state of Washington; and the IRS letter testifying to
nonprofit status or the copy of the application to the IRS.
B. This section sets forth examples of activities that constitute engaging in business in the City, and
establishes safe harbors for certain of those activities so that a person who meets the criteria may engage in
de minimus business activities in the City without having to pay a business license fee. The activities listed
in this section are illustrative only and are not intended to narrow the definition of "engaging in business"
in ACC 5.10.020.F. If an activity is not listed, whether it constitutes engaging in business in the City shall
be determined by considering all the facts and circumstances and applicable law.
C. Without being all inclusive, any one of the following activities conducted within the City by a person, or its
employee, agent, representative, independent contractor, broker or another acting on its behalf constitutes
engaging in business and requires a person to register and obtain a business license.
1. Owning, renting, leasing, maintaining, or having the right to use, or using, tangible personal property,
intangible personal property, or real property permanently or temporarily located in the City.
2. Owning, renting, leasing, using, or maintaining, an office, place of business, or other
establishment in the City.
3. Soliciting sales.
4. Making repairs or providing maintenance or service to real or tangible personal property, including
warranty work and property maintenance.
5. Providing technical assistance or service, including quality control, product inspections, warranty
work, or similar services on or in connection with tangible personal property sold by the person or on
its behalf.
6. Installing, constructing, or sup ervising installation or construction of, real or tangible personal property.
7. Soliciting, negotiating, or approving franchise, license, or other similar agreements.
8. Collecting current or delinquent accounts.
9. Picking up and transporting tangible personal property, solid waste, construction debris, or
excavated materials.
10. Providing disinfecting and pest control services, employment and labor pool services, home nursing
care, janitorial services, appraising, landscape architectural services, security system services,
surveying, and real estate services including the listing of homes and managing real property.
11. Rendering professional services such as those provided by accountants, architects, attorneys, auctioneers,
consultants, engineers, professional athletes, barbers, baseball clubs and other sports organizations,
chemists, consultants, psychologists, court reporters, dentists, doctors, detectives, laboratory operators,
teachers, veterinarians.
12. Meeting with customers or potential customers, even when no sale s or orders are solicited at the
Page 112 of 160
Ordinance 6692 – Exhibit B
meetings.
13. Training or recruiting agents, representatives, independent contractors, brokers or others, domiciled or
operating on a job in the City, acting on its behalf, or for customers or potential customers.
14. Investigating, resolving, or otherwise assisting in resolving customer complaints.
15. In-store stocking or manipulating products or goods, sold to and owned by a customer, regardless
of where sale and delivery of the goods took place.
16. Delivering goods in vehicles owned, rented, leased, used, or maintained by the person or another
acting on its behalf.
D. If a person, or its employee, agent, representative, independent contractor, broker or another acting on the
person’s behalf, engages in no other activities in or with the City but the following, it need not register and
obtain a business license.
1. Meeting with suppliers of goods and services as a customer.
2. Meeting with government representatives in their official capacity, other than those performing
contracting or purchasing functions.
3. Attending meetings, such as board meetings, retreats, seminars, and conferences, or other meetings
wherein the person does not provide training in connection with tangible personal property sold by the
person or on its behalf. This provision does not apply to any board of director member or attendee
engaging in business such as a member of a board of directors who attends a board meeting.
4. Renting tangible or intangible property as a customer when the property is not used in the City.
5. Attending, but not participating in a "trade show" or "multiple vendor events". Persons participating at a
trade show shall review the City's trade show or multiple vendor event ordinances.
6. Conducting advertising through the mail.
7. Soliciting sales by phone from a location outside the City.
D. A seller located outside the City merely delivering goods into the City by means of common carrier is not
required to register and obtain a business license, provided that it engages in no other business activities in the
City. Such activities do not include those in subsection (C). The City expressly intends that engaging in
business include any activity sufficient to establish nexus for purposes of applying the license fee under th e law
and the constitutions of the United States and the State of Washington. Nexus is presumed to continue as long
as the taxpayer benefits from the activity that constituted the original nex us generating contact or subsequent
contacts.
E. Threshold Exemption. For purposes of the license by this chapter, any person or business whose annual value
of products, gross proceeds of sales, or gross income of the business in the city is equal to or less than $2,000
and who does not maintain a place of business within the city, shall submit a business license registration to the
Director or designee. The threshold does not apply to regulatory license requirements or activities that require a
specialized permit.
BF. It is unlawful for any person to operate or physically conduct any business within the city without having first
obtained a general business license for the current business year or portion thereof. The applicant for a business
license required under this title shall be over the age of 18 years. If any person required to pay a license fee, by
the terms and provisions of this chapter, for any period fails or refuses to do so, they shall not be granted a
license for the current period until such delinquent license fee, together with penalties, has been paid in f ull.
Page 113 of 160
Ordinance 6692 – Exhibit B
CG. Specific businesses identified in Chapters 3.80, 3.84, 3.88, 5.20, 5.30 and 5.84 ACC or elsewhere in this title or
other titles of the Auburn City Code will be required to obtain an individual business license as otherwise
indicated.
DH. Any business within the city jurisdiction on any project requiring a permit must have a business license.
Page 114 of 160
CERTIFICATION OF ENROLLMENT
ENGROSSED HOUSE BILL 2005
Chapter 209, Laws of 2017
65th Legislature
2017 Regular Session
MUNICIPAL BUSINESS LICENSING--STATE PARTNERSHIP--TAX APPORTIONMENT
EFFECTIVE DATE: 7/23/2017
Passed by the House April 17, 2017
Yeas 97 Nays 0
FRANK CHOPP
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Passed by the Senate April 12, 2017
Yeas 49 Nays 0
CYRUS HABIB
President of the Senate
CERTIFICATE
I, Bernard Dean, Chief Clerk of the
House of Representatives of the
State of Washington, do hereby
certify that the attached is
ENGROSSED HOUSE BILL 2005 as passed
by House of Representatives and the
Senate on the dates hereon set
forth.
BERNARD DEAN
Chief Clerk
Approved May 5, 2017 10:37 AM FILED
May 5, 2017
JAY INSLEE
Governor of the State of Washington
Secretary of State
State of Washington
Page 115 of 160
AN ACT Relating to improving the business climate in this state1
by simplifying the administration of municipal general business2
licenses; adding a new chapter to Title 35 RCW; and creating a new3
section.4
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:5
NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. The definitions in this section apply6
throughout this chapter unless the context clearly requires7
otherwise.8
(1) "Business licensing service," "business licensing system,"9
and "business license" have the same meaning as in RCW 19.02.020.10
(2) "City" means a city, town, or code city.11
(3) "Department" means the department of revenue.12
(4) "General business license" means a license, not including a13
regulatory license or a temporary license, that a city requires all14
or most businesses to obtain to conduct business within that city.15
(5) "Partner" means the relationship between a city and the16
department under which general business licenses are issued and17
renewed through the business licensing service in accordance with18
chapter 19.02 RCW.19
(6) "Regulatory business license" means a license, other than a20
general business license, required for certain types of businesses21
ENGROSSED HOUSE BILL 2005
AS AMENDED BY THE SENATE
Passed Legislature - 2017 Regular Session
State of Washington 65th Legislature 2017 Regular Session
By Representatives Lytton, Nealey, Kagi, and Ormsby
Read first time 02/07/17. Referred to Committee on Finance.
p. 1 EHB 2005.SLPage 116 of 160
that a city has determined warrants additional regulation, such as1
taxicab or other for-hire vehicle operators, adult entertainment2
businesses, amusement device operators, massage parlors, debt3
collectors, door-to-door sales persons, trade-show operators, and4
home-based businesses.5
NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. (1) Except as otherwise provided in6
subsection (7) of this section, a city that requires a general7
business license of any person that engages in business activities8
within that city must partner with the department to have such9
license issued, and renewed if the city requires renewal, through the10
business licensing service in accordance with chapter 19.02 RCW.11
(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3) of this12
section, the department must phase in the issuance and renewal of13
general business licenses of cities that required a general business14
license as of July 1, 2017, and are not already partnering with the15
department, as follows:16
(i) Between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2021, the17
department must partner with at least six cities per year;18
(ii) Between January 1, 2022, and December 31, 2027, the19
department must partner with the remaining cities; or20
(iii) Between July 1, 2017 and December 31, 2022, the department21
must partner with all cities requiring a general business license if22
specific funding for the purposes of this subsection (iii) is23
appropriated in the omnibus appropriations act.24
(b) A city that imposes a general business license requirement25
and does not partner with the department as of January 1, 2018, may26
continue to issue and renew its general business licenses until the27
city partners with the department as provided in subsection (4) of28
this section.29
(2)(a) A city that did not require a general business license as30
of July 1, 2017, but imposes a new general business license31
requirement after that date must advise the department in writing of32
its intent to do so at least ninety days before the requirement takes33
effect.34
(b) If a city subject to (a) of this subsection (2) imposes a new35
general business license requirement after July 1, 2017, the36
department, in its sole discretion, may adjust resources to partner37
with the imposing city as of the date that the new general business38
licensing requirement takes effect. If the department cannot39
p. 2 EHB 2005.SLPage 117 of 160
reallocate resources, the city may issue and renew its general1
business license until the department is able to partner with the2
city.3
(3) The department may delay assuming the duties of issuing and4
renewing general business licenses beyond the dates provided in5
subsection (1)(a) of this section if:6
(a) Insufficient funds are appropriated for this specific7
purpose;8
(b) The department cannot ensure the business licensing system is9
adequately prepared to handle all general business licenses due to10
unforeseen circumstances;11
(c) The department determines that a delay is necessary to ensure12
that the transition to mandatory department issuance and renewal of13
general business licenses is as seamless as possible; or14
(d) The department receives a written notice from a city within15
sixty days of the date that the city appears on the department's16
biennial partnership plan, which includes an explanation of the17
fiscal or technical challenges causing the city to delay joining the18
system. A delay under this subsection (3)(d) may be for no more than19
three years.20
(4)(a) In consultation with affected cities and in accordance21
with the priorities established in subsection (5) of this section,22
the department must establish a biennial plan for partnering with23
cities to assume the issuance and renewal of general business24
licenses as required by this section. The plan must identify the25
cities that the department will partner with and the dates targeted26
for the department to assume the duties of issuing and renewing27
general business licenses.28
(b) By January 1, 2018, and January 1st of each even-numbered29
year thereafter, the department must submit the partnering plan30
required in (a) of this subsection (4) to the governor; legislative31
fiscal committees; house local government committee; senate32
agriculture, water, trade and economic development committee; senate33
local government committee; affected cities; association of34
Washington cities; association of Washington business; national35
federation of independent business; and Washington retail36
association.37
(c) The department may, in its sole discretion, alter the plan38
required in (a) of this subsection (4) with a minimum notice of39
thirty days to affected cities.40
p. 3 EHB 2005.SLPage 118 of 160
(5) When determining the plan to partner with cities for the1
issuance and renewal of general business licenses as required in2
subsection (4) of this section, cities that notified the department3
of their wish to partner with the department before January 1, 2017,4
must be allowed to partner before other cities.5
(6) A city that partners with the department for the issuance and6
renewal of general business licenses through the business licensing7
service in accordance with chapter 19.02 RCW may not issue and renew8
those licenses.9
(7) A city may decline to partner with the department for the10
issuance and renewal of a general business license as provided in11
subsection (1) of this section if the city participates in the online12
local business license and tax filing portal known as "FileLocal" as13
of July 1, 2020. For the purposes of this subsection (7), a city is14
considered to be a FileLocal participant as of the date that a15
business may access FileLocal for purposes of applying for or16
renewing that city's general business license and reporting and17
paying that city's local business and occupation taxes. A city that18
ceases participation in FileLocal after July 1, 2020, must partner19
with the department for the issuance and renewal of its general20
business license as provided in subsection (1) of this section.21
(8) By January 1, 2019, and each January 1st thereafter through22
January 1, 2028, the department must submit a progress report to the23
legislature. The report required by this subsection must provide24
information about the progress of the department's efforts to partner25
with all cities that impose a general business license requirement26
and include:27
(a) A list of cities that have partnered with the department as28
required in subsection (1) of this section;29
(b) A list of cities that have not partnered with the department;30
(c) A list of cities that are scheduled to partner with the31
department during the upcoming calendar year;32
(d) A list of cities that have declined to partner with the33
department as provided in subsection (7) of this section;34
(e) An explanation of lessons learned and any process35
efficiencies incorporated by the department;36
(f) Any recommendations to further simplify the issuance and37
renewal of general business licenses by the department; and38
(g) Any other information the department considers relevant.39
p. 4 EHB 2005.SLPage 119 of 160
NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. (1) A general business license that must1
be issued and renewed through the business licensing service in2
accordance with chapter 19.02 RCW is subject to the provisions of3
this section.4
(2)(a) A city has broad authority to impose a fee structure as5
provided by RCW 35.22.280, 35.23.440, and 35A.82.020. However, any6
fee structure selected by a city must be within the department's7
technical ability to administer. The department has the sole8
discretion to determine if it can administer a city's fee structure.9
(b) If the department is unable to administer a city's fee10
structure, the city must work with the department to adopt a fee11
structure that is administrable by the department. If a city fails to12
comply with this subsection (2)(b), it may not enforce its general13
business licensing requirements on any person until the effective14
date of a fee structure that is administrable by the department.15
(3) A general business license may not be renewed more frequently16
than once per year except that the department may require a more17
frequent renewal date as may be necessary to synchronize the renewal18
date for the general business license with the business's business19
license expiration date.20
(4) The business licensing system need not accommodate any21
monetary penalty imposed by a city for failing to obtain or renew a22
general business license. The penalty imposed in RCW 19.02.08523
applies to general business licenses that are not renewed by their24
expiration date.25
(5) The department may refuse to administer any provision of a26
city business license ordinance that is inconsistent with this27
chapter.28
NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. The department is not authorized to29
enforce a city's licensing laws except to the extent of issuing or30
renewing a license in accordance with this chapter and chapter 19.0231
RCW or refusing to issue a license due to an incomplete application,32
nonpayment of the appropriate fees as indicated by the license33
application or renewal application, or the nonpayment of any34
applicable penalty for late renewal.35
NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. Cities whose general business licenses are36
issued through the business licensing system retain the authority to37
set license fees, provide exemptions and thresholds for these38
p. 5 EHB 2005.SLPage 120 of 160
licenses, approve or deny license applicants, and take appropriate1
administrative actions against licensees.2
NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. Cities may not require a person to obtain3
or renew a general business license unless the person engages in4
business within its respective city. For the purposes of this5
section, a person may not be considered to be engaging in business6
within a city unless the person is subject to the taxing jurisdiction7
of a city under the standards established for interstate commerce8
under the commerce clause of the United States Constitution.9
NEW SECTION. Sec. 7. A general business license change enacted10
by a city whose general business license is issued through the11
business licensing system takes effect no sooner than seventy-five12
days after the department receives notice of the change if the change13
affects in any way who must obtain a license, who is exempt from14
obtaining a license, or the amount or method of determining any fee15
for the issuance or renewal of a license.16
NEW SECTION. Sec. 8. (1)(a) The cities, working through the17
association of Washington cities, must form a model ordinance18
development committee made up of a representative sampling of cities19
that impose a general business license requirement. This committee20
must work through the association of Washington cities to adopt a21
model ordinance on general business license requirements by July 1,22
2018. The model ordinance and subsequent amendments developed by the23
committee must be adopted using a process that includes opportunity24
for substantial input from business stakeholders and other members of25
the public. Input must be solicited from statewide business26
associations and from local chambers of commerce and downtown27
business associations in cities that require a person that conducts28
business in the city to obtain a general business license.29
(b) The department, association of Washington cities, and30
municipal research and services center must post copies of, or links31
to, the model ordinance on their internet web sites. Additionally, a32
city that imposes a general business license requirement must make33
copies of its general business license ordinance or ordinances34
available for inspection and copying as provided in chapter 42.5635
RCW.36
p. 6 EHB 2005.SLPage 121 of 160
(c) The definitions in the model ordinance may not be amended1
more frequently than once every four years, except that the model2
ordinance may be amended at any time to comply with changes in state3
law or court decisions. Any amendment to a mandatory provision of the4
model ordinance must be adopted with the same effective date by all5
cities.6
(2) A city that imposes a general business license requirement7
must adopt the mandatory provisions of the model ordinance by January8
1, 2019. The following provisions are mandatory:9
(a) A definition of "engaging in business within the city" for10
purposes of delineating the circumstances under which a general11
business license is required;12
(b) A uniform minimum licensing threshold under which a person13
would be relieved of the requirement to obtain a city's general14
business license. A city retains the authority to create a higher15
threshold for the requirement to obtain a general business license16
but must not deviate lower than the level required by the model17
ordinance.18
(3)(a) A city may require a person that is under the uniform19
minimum licensing threshold as provided in subsection (2) of this20
section to obtain a city registration with no fee due to the city.21
(b) A city that requires a city registration as provided in (a)22
of this subsection must partner with the department to have such23
registration issued through the business licensing service in24
accordance with chapter 19.02 RCW. This subsection (3)(b) does not25
apply to a city that is excluded from the requirement to partner with26
the department for the issuance and renewal of general business27
licenses as provided in section 2 of this act.28
NEW SECTION. Sec. 9. Cities that impose a general business29
license must adopt the mandatory provisions of the model ordinance as30
provided in section 8 of this act by January 1, 2019. A city that has31
not complied with the requirements of this section by January 1,32
2019, may not enforce its general business licensing requirements on33
any person until the date that the mandatory provisions of the model34
ordinance take effect within the city.35
NEW SECTION. Sec. 10. Cities must coordinate with the36
association of Washington cities to submit a report to the governor;37
legislative fiscal committees; house local government committee; and38
p. 7 EHB 2005.SLPage 122 of 160
the senate agriculture, water, trade and economic development1
committee by January 1, 2019. The report must:2
(1) Provide information about the model ordinance adopted by the3
cities as required in section 8 of this act;4
(2) Identify cities that have and have not adopted the mandatory5
provisions of the model ordinance; and6
(3) Incorporate comments from statewide business organizations7
concerning the process and substance of the model ordinance.8
Statewide business organizations must be allowed thirty days to9
submit comments for inclusion in the report.10
NEW SECTION. Sec. 11. (1) The legislature directs cities,11
towns, and identified business organizations to partner in12
recommending changes to simplify the two factor apportionment formula13
provided in RCW 35.102.130.14
(2)(a) The local business and occupation tax apportionment task15
force is established. The task force must consist of the following16
seven representatives:17
(i) Three voting representatives selected by the association of18
Washington cities that are tax managers representing municipalities19
that impose a local business and occupation tax, including at least20
one jurisdiction that has performed an audit where apportionment21
errors were discovered.22
(ii) Three voting representatives selected by the association of23
Washington business, including at least one tax practitioner or legal24
counsel with experience representing business clients during25
municipal audits that involved apportionment errors or disputes.26
(iii) One nonvoting representative from the department.27
(b) The task force may seek input or collaborate with other28
parties, as it deems necessary. The department must serve as the task29
force chair and must staff the task force.30
(c) Beginning in the first month following the effective date of31
this section, the task force must meet no less frequently than once32
per month until it reports to the legislature as provided under33
subsection (3) of this section.34
(3) By October 31, 2018, the task force established in subsection35
(2) of this section must prepare a report to the legislature to36
recommend changes to RCW 35.102.130 and related sections, as needed,37
to develop a method for assigning gross receipts to a local38
jurisdiction using a market-based model. The task force must focus on39
p. 8 EHB 2005.SLPage 123 of 160
methods that rely on information typically available in commercial1
transaction receipts and captured by common business recordkeeping2
systems.3
(4) The task force terminates January 1, 2019, unless legislation4
is enacted to extend such termination date.5
NEW SECTION. Sec. 12. Sections 1 through 10 of this act6
constitute a new chapter in Title 35 RCW.7
Passed by the House April 17, 2017.
Passed by the Senate April 12, 2017.
Approved by the Governor May 5, 2017.
Filed in Office of Secretary of State May 5, 2017.
--- END ---
p. 9 EHB 2005.SLPage 124 of 160
Published on Jul 18, 2018
Contact: Victoria Lincoln, Andrew Pittelkau, Sheila Gall
Business license and city B&O tax simplification
In the 2017 session, EHB 2005 (RCW 35.90) passed requiring three actions by
cities with business licenses and local B&O taxes. The law:
◾Requires cities with business licenses to establish a workgroup to create a
model business license with a licensing threshold by July 2018 for adoption
by all business license cities by January 1, 2019;
◾Requires all cities with business license to administer their business license
through the state’s Business Licensing System (BLS) by 2022 or FileLocal by
2020; and
◾Establishes a task force on local B&O tax service apportionment under RCW
35.102.130 to report to the Legislature by October 2018.
Final model ordinance for local business licenses – minimum
threshold
Cities were required to develop a model ordinance for business licensing by July 1,
2018. The ordinance includes a mandatory definition of “engaging in business” and
a minimum threshold (or occasional sale) exemption to establish when out-of-town
or transient businesses are required to be licensed. All business license cities must
adopt it by the end of the year (RCW 35.90.080).
Model threshold language
What is in the model?
The model threshold has two pieces: a model threshold and a definition of
“engaging in business.”
Final city business license model threshold
Page 1 of 6Final city business license model threshold
7/26/2018https://wacities.org/advocacy/News/advocacy-news/2018/07/18/final-city-business-license...
Page 125 of 160
◾The model business license threshold language would:
◾Apply a minimum threshold of $2,000 per year in the city for businesses
that do not have a location in the city;
◾Require a license for businesses with a location in the city without
regard to the threshold;
◾Allow cities the option to require registration with no fee for businesses
under the threshold; and
◾Only apply to general business licenses, not regulatory licenses or local
taxes.
◾The definition of “engaging in business” includes examples of what constitutes
business activities in cities that would subject a business to license
requirements, as well as those activities that would not. The model language
is adapted from the definition that the 45 cities with local B&O taxes have
already adopted for the definition of “engaging in business” in the B&O tax
model ordinance.
What are the deadlines for all cities with business licenses to adopt
the model?
Cities with a business license must adopt the model by January 1, 2019. However,
cities that currently partner with the state’s Business Licensing Service (BLS) for
business licensing administration have a deadline of October 17, 2018, because
they must provide BLS 75-day notice of any changes to their business licenses
(including this mandatory change).
Where can I learn more about implementing the threshold?
AWC is hosting a webinar to tell you everything you need to know to comply with the
mandatory model threshold.
Prepare to streamline your business license
August 8 at 10 am | Webinar
Page 2 of 6Final city business license model threshold
7/26/2018https://wacities.org/advocacy/News/advocacy-news/2018/07/18/final-city-business-license...
Page 126 of 160
AWC also held a presentation on this topic at its Annual Conference in June and will
present at the WFOA Annual Conference on September 19 and EWFOA on October
12.
What happens if we don’t enact the threshold by the deadline?
RCW 35.90.090 provides that a city cannot enforce its business license after
January 1, 2019, until it has adopted the mandatory threshold.
RCW 35.90.090: “A city that has not complied with the requirements of this section
by January 1, 2019, may not enforce its general business licensing requirements on
any person until the date that the mandatory provisions of the model ordinance take
effect within the city.”
What if my city wants a higher threshold?
Cities can choose to enact a higher threshold. The $2,000 threshold level per city
per year for out-of-city businesses is the minimum level that every city must enact.
How was the business license threshold developed?
Section 8 of EHB 2005 required cities to work through the Association of
Washington Cities (AWC) to develop a model business license threshold by July 1,
2018 with a focus on determining a threshold for when a license should be required
for out-of-city businesses. The bill also required input from the business community.
AWC convened a task force of city business license officials to begin drafting a
model license threshold in August 2017. The group met monthly in person or via
conference call to research city business license systems and existing options for
establishing a model threshold and to review feedback on the proposed model from
cities and the business community. AWC sent a survey to cities last fall on
preferences for approaching the model threshold and sent a draft for review to cities
in March 2018. In April-June 2018, AWC sent drafts of the model to the business
community for comment, and the task force met in person with business community
representatives.
In response to business community concerns about the level of the threshold, the
committee proposed doubling its initial proposed level to $2,000 per year in the city
for businesses without a location in the city. The committee agreed to review the
Page 3 of 6Final city business license model threshold
7/26/2018https://wacities.org/advocacy/News/advocacy-news/2018/07/18/final-city-business-license...
Page 127 of 160
threshold level in four years when the model B&O tax model ordinance will also be
due for review and more information on impacts of the license threshold is known. In
late June, the committee finalized the model language.
Business license model threshold implementation timeline
July 2017 – EHB 2005 takes effect
August 2017 – First meeting of city workgroup
July 1, 2018 – Deadline for city work group to develop model ordinance with
minimum threshold to get a license
August 8, 2018 – AWC webinar on implementing model threshold
October 17, 2018 – Deadline for current BLS partner cities to adopt model minimum
threshold and notify DOR of changes to business license for threshold adoption
(Cities on BLS plan but not yet onboarded would have later deadline of January 1,
2019)
January 1, 2019 – Deadline for all other cities to adopt model minimum threshold
How many cities does this impact?
More than 230 cities issue local business licenses.
Where can I find more information on the Business Licensing Service
or FileLocal?
Business licensing service
FileLocal
What about the provision of EHB 2005 and the scope of work for the
B&O service apportionment task force?
The two-factor formula for B&O tax service apportionment was required by RCW
35.102.130, effective in 2008. The two factors, payroll and service income, have
complicated multi-part tests to determine how much of business service revenues
should be apportioned to a city.
Page 4 of 6Final city business license model threshold
7/26/2018https://wacities.org/advocacy/News/advocacy-news/2018/07/18/final-city-business-license...
Page 128 of 160
EHB 2005 created a seven-member task force to make recommendations to
simplify two-factor service apportionment by October 2018 with the following
members:
◾One Department of Revenue, non-voting chair
◾Three cities with local B&O taxes
◾Three business representatives
The task force has been meeting monthly since August 2017, and the deadline by
which it must submit a report to the Legislature is October 31, 2018. The city
representatives are:
◾Chris Bothwell, Lake Forest Park
◾Joseph Cunha, Seattle
◾Danielle Larson, Tacoma
How did this legislation come about?
During the 2016 legislative session, lawmakers passed HB 2959, establishing a task
force to evaluate options to continue local business tax and licensing simplification.
On December 30, 2016, the task force released its final report on local tax and
licensing simplification with four main recommendations. The task force did not
recommend that all cities with a business license be required to participate in the
state’s Business Licensing Service, nor did it recommend any centralized collection
of city B&O tax at the state level. However, some of the items recommended
represented a significant compromise on the part of cities.
Where can I find more information on the 2016 task force?
The report included four recommendations related to licensing, establishing a
business license threshold, recommending a task force on service income
apportionment, and providing for data sharing between DOR and FileLocal. Read
the full report.
Back to Advocacy news by category
Page 5 of 6Final city business license model threshold
7/26/2018https://wacities.org/advocacy/News/advocacy-news/2018/07/18/final-city-business-license...
Page 129 of 160
Page 6 of 6Final city business license model threshold
7/26/2018https://wacities.org/advocacy/News/advocacy-news/2018/07/18/final-city-business-license...
Page 130 of 160
1
Model Business License Threshold Final Version
June 2018
Model business license threshold options: (cities would adopt one of the options)
1. Threshold Exemption:
To the extent set forth in this section, the following persons and businesses shall be exempt from the
registration, license and/or license fee requirements as outlined in this chapter:
(1) Any person or business whose annual value of products, gross proceeds of sales, or gross
income of the business in the city is equal to or less than $2,000 (or higher threshold as
determined by city) and who does not maintain a place of business within the city shall be
exempt from the general business license requirements in this chapter. The exemption does not
apply to regulatory license requirements or activities that require a specialized permit.
2. Threshold with Fee-free License/Registration-only Option:
For purposes of the license by this chapter, any person or business whose annual value of products,
gross proceeds of sales, or gross income of the business in the city is equal to or less than $2,000 (or
higher threshold as determined by city) and who does not maintain a place of business within the city,
shall submit a business license registration to the Director or designee. The threshold does not apply to
regulatory license requirements or activities that require a specialized permit.
[City would list this fee-free license in its business license rates section as $0 or no fee.]
Page 131 of 160
2
Engaging in business model definition:
"Engaging in business"
(1) The term "engaging in business" means commencing, conducting, or continuing in business, and also
the exercise of corporate or franchise powers, as well as liquidating a business when the liquidators
thereof hold themselves out to the public as conducting such business.
(2) This section sets forth examples of activities that constitute engaging in business in the City, and
establishes safe harbors for certain of those activities so that a person who meets the criteria may
engage in de minimus business activities in the City without having to pay a business license fee. The
activities listed in this section are illustrative only and are not intended to narrow the definition of
"engaging in business" in subsection (1). If an activity is not listed, whether it constitutes engaging in
business in the City shall be determined by considering all the facts and circumstances and applicable
law.
(3) Without being all inclusive, any one of the following activities conducted within the City by a person,
or its employee, agent, representative, independent contractor, broker or another acting on its behalf
constitutes engaging in business and requires a person to register and obtain a business license.
(a) Owning, renting, leasing, maintaining, or having the right to use, or using, tangible personal
property, intangible personal property, or real property permanently or temporarily located in
the City.
(b) Owning, renting, leasing, using, or maintaining, an office, place of business, or other
establishment in the City.
(c) Soliciting sales.
(d) Making repairs or providing maintenance or service to real or tangible personal property,
including warranty work and property maintenance.
(e) Providing technical assistance or service, including quality control, product inspections,
warranty work, or similar services on or in connection with tangible personal property sold by
the person or on its behalf.
(f) Installing, constructing, or supervising installation or construction of, real or tangible personal
property.
(g) Soliciting, negotiating, or approving franchise, license, or other similar agreements.
(h) Collecting current or delinquent accounts.
(I) Picking up and transporting tangible personal property, solid waste, construction debris, or
excavated materials.
(j) Providing disinfecting and pest control services, employment and labor pool services, home
nursing care, janitorial services, appraising, landscape architectural services, security system
services, surveying, and real estate services including the listing of homes and managing real
property.
Page 132 of 160
3
(k) Rendering professional services such as those provided by accountants, architects, attorneys,
auctioneers, consultants, engineers, professional athletes, barbers, baseball clubs and other
sports organizations, chemists, consultants, psychologists, court reporters, dentists, doctors,
detectives, laboratory operators, teachers, veterinarians.
(l) Meeting with customers or potential customers, even when no sales or orders are solicited at
the meetings.
(m) Training or recruiting agents, representatives, independent contractors, brokers or others,
domiciled or operating on a job in the City, acting on its behalf, or for customers or potential
customers.
(n) Investigating, resolving, or otherwise assisting in resolving customer complaints.
(o) In-store stocking or manipulating products or goods, sold to and owned by a customer,
regardless of where sale and delivery of the goods took place.
(p) Delivering goods in vehicles owned, rented, leased, used, or maintained by the person or
another acting on its behalf.
(4) If a person, or its employee, agent, representative, independent contractor, broker or another
acting on the person’s behalf, engages in no other activities in or with the City but the following, it
need not register and obtain a business license.
(a) Meeting with suppliers of goods and services as a customer.
(b) Meeting with government representatives in their official capacity, other than those
performing contracting or purchasing functions.
(c) Attending meetings, such as board meetings, retreats, seminars, and conferences, or other
meetings wherein the person does not provide training in connection with tangible personal
property sold by the person or on its behalf. This provision does not apply to any board of
director member or attendee engaging in business such as a member of a board of directors
who attends a board meeting.
(d) Renting tangible or intangible property as a customer when the property is not used in the
City.
(e) Attending, but not participating in a "trade show" or "multiple vendor events". Persons
participating at a trade show shall review the City's trade show or multiple vendor event
ordinances.
(f) Conducting advertising through the mail.
(g) Soliciting sales by phone from a location outside the City.
(5) A seller located outside the City merely delivering goods into the City by means of common
carrier is not required to register and obtain a business license, provided that it engages in no other
business activities in the City. Such activities do not include those in subsection (4).
Page 133 of 160
4
The City expressly intends that engaging in business include any activity sufficient to establish nexus
for purposes of applying the license fee under the law and the constitutions of the United States and
the State of Washington. Nexus is presumed to continue as long as the taxpayer benefits from the
activity that constituted the original nexus generating contact or subsequent contacts.
Page 134 of 160
Attachment D – Side by Side Comparison
Existing City of Auburn AWC Model
Definition of
Business
“Business” means all activities, occupations, trades, pursuits,
professions, and matters located within the city or within the
city’s jurisdiction, with a physical presence in the city and
operated on a permanent or ongoing basis whether operated
with the object of gain, benefit, advantage or profit, or
operated not for profit, to the business enterprise or to another
person, directly or indirectly; provided that “business” shall not
mean governmental agencies.
“Engaging in Business” means commencing, conducting, or continuing in
business, and also the exercise of corporate or franchise powers, as well
as liquidating a business when the liquidators thereof hold themselves
out to the public as conducting such business.
Exemption
Thresholds
(Under Auburn
column – actual
codified
exemptions;
under AWC
column –
suggested
exemptions)
None provided in City Code 1. Apply a minimum threshold of $2,000 per year in the city for
businesses that do not have a location in the city (the city can choose
a different threshold);
2. Require a license for businesses with a location in the city without
regard to the threshold;
3. Allow the city to require registration with no fee for businesses under
the threshold.
Examples of
Engaging in
Business
None provided in City Code. In practice, the City has not
required licenses for the following types of businesses:
Landscape contractors based outside of Auburn but that
have a job inside Auburn.
Individual real estate agents (an Auburn based real estate
office requires a license but an agent based in another city
that is listing a property in Auburn has not needed an
Auburn business license).
Vendors at city sponsored events (e.g. a vendor at the
Farmers Market or at Petpalooza).
Many examples are provided on pages 2 thru 4 of Attachment 2. On
page 2 of Attachment 2, subsection (3) identifies a non-exhaustive list of
examples of what it means to “engage in business.” On page 3 of
Attachment 2, subsection (4) identifies a non-exhaustive list of examples
of activities that would not qualify as “engaging in business.”
Page 135 of 160
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Payback Code Revisions (Ordinance No. 6696) (Gaub) (15
Minutes)
Date:
October 16, 2018
Department:
Public Works
Attachments:
Draft Ordinance No. 6696
Exhibit A
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
Under Washington state law, a developer or property owner (“applicant”) has the right to seek
reimbursement from other property owners (“benefited properties”) who connect to the public
streets or utilities that the applicant constructed as part of the applicant’s property
development. The payback agreement between the City and the applicant provides the
mechanism for the City to collect the reimbursement from the benefited properties as a
condition of service, and to provide the reimbursement to the applicant.
On June 16, 2014, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 6512 to consolidate several code
sections into a new Auburn City Code regulation (ACC 3.25) relating to street and utility
payback agreements to reflect some recently-enacted changes to the state law governing
payback agreements. Staff recommends the following additional changes to ACC 3.25 to
make the City’s administration of the payback agreement process more efficient and to
provide better notification to the benefited property owners.
Applicant to submit the payback agreement application before construction begins
instead of after construction is complete.
City to recover administration costs of collecting reimbursements by adding a payment
processing fee to the City’s fee schedule.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:Gaub
Meeting Date:October 22, 2018 Item Number:
Page 136 of 160
Page 137 of 160
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6696
October 22, 2018
Page 1 of 2
ORDINANCE NO. 6696
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON RELATED TO
INFRASTRUCTURE PAYBACK AGREEMENTS,
AMENDING CHAPTER 3.25 OF THE AUBURN CITY
CODE
WHEREAS, Chapter 3.25 of the Auburn City Code authorize developers,
property owners, and the City who build improvements to the City’s infrastructure
to recover a portion of their costs from other property owners that benefit from
those improvements; and,
WHEREAS, after reviewing the current process, staff recommends adding
clarifying language to those Chapters that will make the City’s administration of the
process more efficient, and that will provide better notification to the benefited
property owners.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN as follows:
Section 1. Amendment to City Code. Chapter 3.25 of the Auburn City
Code is amended to read as shown in Exhibit A.
Section 2. Implementation. The Mayor is authorized to implement
such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of
this legislation.
Section 3. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are
declared to be separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence,
paragraph, subdivision, section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the
Page 138 of 160
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6696
October 22, 2018
Page 2 of 2
application thereof to any person or circumstance shall not affect the validity of the
remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or
circumstances.
Section 4. Effective date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be
in force five days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided
by law.
INTRODUCED: ___________________
PASSED: ________________________
APPROVED: _____________________
________________________________
NANCY BACKUS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________________
Shawn Campbell, MMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Steven L. Gross, City Attorney
Published: _________________
Page 139 of 160
EXHIBIT A
Auburn Municipal Code
Chapter 3.25 PAYBACK AGREEMENTS
Page 1/4
The Auburn Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 6679, and legislation passed through March 19, 2018.
Chapter 3.25
PAYBACK AGREEMENTS
Sections:
3.25.010 Purpose.
3.25.020 Definitions.
3.25.030 City funding.
3.25.040 Agreement – When mandatory.
3.25.050 City engineer’s authority.
3.25.060 Application – Process.
3.25.070 Costs eligible for reimbursement.
3.25.080 Formation of reimbursement area.
3.25.090 Contract execution and recording.
3.25.100 Implementation of agreement.
3.25.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a mechanism to reimburse an eligible applicant and/or the city for costs
associated with the construction of public street or public utility system improvements. This chapter is intended to
implement and thereby make available to the public the provisions of Chapters 35.72 and 35.91 RCW as p resently
adopted or as may be subsequently amended. (Ord. 6512 § 1, 2014.)
3.25.020 Definitions.
A. Use of Words and Phrases. As used in this chapter, unless the context or subject matter clearly requires
otherwise, the words or phrases defined in this section shall have the indicated meanings.
B. “Applicant” means the owner, developer, or building permit applicant who is required by any ordinance of the
city to construct improvements as a prerequisite of property development. Street or utility improvements constructed
in order to comply with the city’s subdivision code, zoning code, comprehensive plan, and ACC Title 12 or 13 are
hereby declared to be prerequisites to further property development for the purposes of RCW 35.72.010 and
35.91.020(1)(a).
C. “Assessment reimbursement area” means all real properties that will benefit from a street or utility system
improvement.
D. “Connection” for utility services means the initial provision of water, sewer or storm drainage service for an
individual property after the issuance of an appropriate permit under Chapters 13.06 or 13.20 ACC, where the
property benefits from utility services as described in ACC 3.25.100, and which results in the creation of a utility
payment account with the city, and service fees being assessed under that account. Connection does not include the
physical tie-in or attachment of mainline water, sewer, or storm drainage infrastructure to the city’s system or to
infrastructure being dedicated or conveyed to the city after construction thereof of that infrastructure that isas
required under Chapter 13.40 ACC.
E. “Payback agreement” means contracts authorized by Chapters 35.72 and 35.91 RCW and this chapter, as
presently adopted or as may be subsequently amended, for transportation or utility system improvements.
F. “Transportation system improvements” means such those improvements to the public street transportation
facilities including, but not limited to, paving, installation of curbs, gutters, storm drainage, sidewalks, street lights,
right-of-way landscaping, traffic signals, and traffic control signs and markings.
G. “Utility system improvements” means such those improvements to the public water, sewer, or storm drainage
systems including, but not limited to, pumping stations, conveyance, distribution and service lines, structures, storm
drainage storage and treatment ponds/vaults, and disposal plants, water mains, hydrants, reservoirs, wells, or
appurtenances thereto those systems. (Ord. 6512 § 1, 2014.)
Page 140 of 160
EXHIBIT A
Auburn Municipal Code
Chapter 3.25 PAYBACK AGREEMENTS
Page 2/4
The Auburn Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 6679, and legislation passed through March 19, 2018.
3.25.030 City funding.
The city may participate in funding of an applicant’s required street or utility system improvements or may enact a
street or utility payback agreement for a city- funded street or utility improvement project following a public hearing
and council approval as specified in this chapter. (Ord. 6512 § 1, 2014.)
3.25.040 Agreement – When mandatory.
A. The city council reserves the right to refuse to enter into any street payback agreement as allowed by law
agreement or to reject an application therefor.
B. As provided for in RCW 35.91.020(1)(a), the city shallwill enter into a utility payback agreement at the owner’s
request if the owner meets all conditions set forth in the statute and code. (Ord. 6512 § 1, 2014.)
3.25.050 City engineer’s authority.
The city engineer shallwill establish administrative rules, regulations, policies, and procedures necessary to
implement the provisions of this chapter and is authorized and directed to execute payback agreements for public
street and utility system improvements uponafter council approval. The city engineer will determine eligibility
consistent with Chapters 35.72 and 35.91 RCW. (Ord. 6512 § 1, 2014.)
3.25.060 Application – Process.
For eachAn applicant required to construct public street or utility system improvements on public rights-of-waythe
applicant is required to construct that is determined by the city engineer to be eligible for a paybac k agreement, the
applicant may apply to the city to establish a payback agreement for recovery of a pro rata share of the costs of
constructing the improvements, from the property owners of record who will subsequently derive a benefit from the
improvements. The application must be received not later than 10 business days after the date that the City’s letter of
eligibility is postmarked, or the applicant will be deemed to have waived the right to request a payback agreement.
The application to enter into a payback agreementApplications for a payback agreement shall be made to the city no
later than 30 calendar days before the system improvements have been completed and accepted by the city, and shall
must include all the following items:
A. A nonrefundable application fee in an the amount as indicated specified in the city’s fee schedule.
B. An estimate of all costs of the project including, but not limited to, design engineerin g, permitting, property
acquisition, construction engineering, contract administration, surveying, and construction costs associated with the
system improvements.
C. A map and legal description identifying the proposed boundaries of the assessment reimburs ement area and each
separately- owned parcel within such that area and including the applicable amount of area and/or front footage of
the property. Such The map shallwill identify the location of the project in relation to the parcels of property in such
the area.
D. A preliminary assessment reimbursement roll stating the proposed assessment for each separate parcel of
property within the proposed assessment reimbursement area as determined by apportioning the total project cost on
the basis of the benefit of the project to each such parcel of property within said the area. The payback
reimbursement charge to other properties shallwill be based on the total project cost, figured on a front foot or area
assessment basis, or other equitable method, as determi ned by the city, or any combination of these methods at the
reasonable discretion of the city engineer.
E. A complete list of record owners of property within the proposed assessment reimbursement area certified as
complete and accurate by the applicant and which states names and mailing addresses for each such owner.
F. The applicant’s acknowledgement that a street payback agreement may extend for a period of up to 15 years
(unless extended as provided for by statute), and a utility payback agreement may e xtend for a period of not less
than 20 years (unless extended as provided for by statute), from the date of final acceptance by the city and the
recovery shall be assigned to run with the land.
Page 141 of 160
EXHIBIT A
Auburn Municipal Code
Chapter 3.25 PAYBACK AGREEMENTS
Page 3/4
The Auburn Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 6679, and legislation passed through March 19, 2018.
G. The applicant’s acknowledgement that approval of the paybac k agreement will be conditioned on the applicant
agreeing to waive any claims for liability of the city in establishment and enforcement of payback agreements,
including an acknowledgement that the city is not responsible for locating a beneficiary or survivor.
H. The applicant’s acknowledgement that it must provide sufficient security to ensure to complete the
improvements.
I. The applicant’s acknowledgement that it must submit the total cost of the improvements to the city within 120
days of completion of the improvements. The applicant shall, if necessary, provide a proposed final roll if directed to
do so by the city. (Ord. 6512 § 1, 2014.)
3.25.070 Costs eligible for reimbursement.
The city council may provide for the reimbursement of all or part of the costs advanced by the city funds and/or
applicant for such the street or utility system improvements, including:
A. The design engineering, permitting, property acquisition, construction engineering, contract administration,
surveying, and construction costs associated with the street or utility system improvements.
B. The cost of all advertising, mailing and publishing of notices.
C. The cost of legal services and any other expenses incurred by the city in connection with such the construction or
financing of the improvement and in the financing thereof, including the issuance of any bonds.
D. City costs of administering the agreement.
E. Outside professional services as applicable.
Costs eligible for reimbursement to the applicant shallwill not include required frontage street or utility
improvements that would have been normally required of the applicant per Chapters 12.64A, 13.08, or 13.40 ACC.
(Ord. 6512 § 1, 2014.)
3.25.080 Formation of reimbursement area.
A. If the city engineer finds that the request complies with the requirements of this chapter, a public hearing of the
city council will conduct a public hearing shallto be set for consider ation of an ordinance approving the payback
agreement. The draft ordinance shallwill constitute the preliminary determination on the assessment reimbursement
area and method of assessment as recommended by the city engineer.
B. A notice of hearing on the proposed ordinance shallwill be published no less than 20 days before the date of the
hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the area of the assessment reimbursement area.
C. A notice of hearing shallwill be given to each owner of record of each lot, tract or parcel of land or other property
within the proposed reimbursement assessment area by mailing by certified mail to the address as shown on the tax
rolls of the county treasurer. The notice of hearing shallwill be mailed not less than 20 calendar days before the date
of the hearing.
D. The notice shallwill refer to the proposed ordinance and designate the proposed assessment reimbursement area
by number and include the information specified in ACC 3.25.060 and the amount of the proposed payback amounts
for each property.
E. On the date and at the time specified in the notice, the city council will conduct a hearing and listen to testimony
as it relates to the desirability and the sufficiency of the proposed assessme nt reimbursement area and methods of
calculating reimbursement assessments and the amounts thereofapportioned to each property. The city council may
continue the hearing to allow for further information to be provided.
F. Following the hearing, the city council may adopt an ordinance which establishes the assessment reimbursement
area, determines the amount of the reimbursement assessment to be charged to each lot, tract or parcel, and provides
for the payment and collection of such assessments. (Ord. 651 2 § 1, 2014.)
Page 142 of 160
EXHIBIT A
Auburn Municipal Code
Chapter 3.25 PAYBACK AGREEMENTS
Page 4/4
The Auburn Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 6679, and legislation passed through March 19, 2018.
3.25.090 Contract execution and recording.
A. Within 30 days of final city council approval of a street and utility payback agreement, t The applicant shallwill
provide a signed copy of the execute and present such payback agreement to the City no later than 20 business days
before it is scheduled for final Council approval.for the signature of the appropriate city official.
B. The payback agreement shallwill be recorded in the King or Pierce County department of records, as appropriate.
Once recorded, the payback agreement is binding on property owners of record within the assessment area who are
not party to the agreement. (Ord. 6512 § 1, 2014.)
3.25.100 Implementation of agreement.
A. All owners of properties for which a payback agreement is in force and who have not previously paid their fair
shareassessment will be assessed the charge as provided in the agreement at the time they receive benefit from the
street or utility system improvements. A property benefits from a street improvement when it receives the beneficial
use of the street as provided for in the payback agreement. A property benefits from a water, sewer, or storm
improvement when any of the following occur: (1) the applicant applies for a water connection permit under ACC
13.06.050; (2) the applicant applies for a sewer connection permit under ACC 13.20.060; or (3) the applicant applies
for a storm drainage permit under ACC 13.48.240. The payback assessments shallwill be based on the costs and
methodology identified in the approved payback agreement. Assessments due under a payback agreement shallwill
be paid in full before the city issuance of any such applicable permits.
B. Monies collected by the city (less the payment processing fee established in the City’s fee schedule) will then be
reimbursed to the applicant within 60 days after the City’s receipt thereof, for the duration of the agreement. The
applicant is required to provide changes of address or ownership every two years from the date of the signing of the
agreement. If the applicant fails to provide the notification within 60 days of this date, the city may collect any
reimbursement funds owed to the applicant under the contract and shall not reimburse those funds to the applicant.
Any moneyThe funds collected by the cCity and not refunded to the applicant shallwill be deposited in the City’s
capital fund of the city. (Ord. 6512 § 1, 2014.)
Page 143 of 160
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Auburn City Code Chapter 12.64A Half Street Improvement
Requirements (Gaub) (20 Minutes)
Date:
October 17, 2018
Department:
Public Works
Attachments:
No Attachments Av ailable
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
At a previous Council study session in July 2018, staff discussed potential revisions to the
City’s development standards related to public improvements required by development
activities. Based on this discussion, revisions to City Code Chapter 12.64A are being
developed that, if adopted, would change when public improvements are triggered and clarify
what public improvements are required. Staff will present the proposed revisions for
discussion and consensus.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:Gaub
Meeting Date:October 22, 2018 Item Number:
Page 144 of 160
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Traffic Impact Fee Update (Gaub) (10 Minutes)
Date:
October 17, 2018
Department:
Public Works
Attachments:
Trans portation Impact Fee Update Memo
2019 Transportation Impact Fee Comparison
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
Present the proposed 2019 update to the transportation impact fees, including changes to
the project list and associated costs, changes in the number of growth trips, and a
comparison with other jurisdictions.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:Gaub
Meeting Date:October 22, 2018 Item Number:
Page 145 of 160
Memorandum
TO: City Council, Mayor Backus
FROM: Public Works
RE: DRAFT 2019 Transportation Impact Fee Update
DATE: October 16, 2018
The Public Works Department is recommending an update to the Transportation Impact Fee
program, to be consistent with the projects funding needs identified in the adopted 2019-2024
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
Purpose
The purpose of this memorandum is to present staff’s recommendation for updating the
Transportation Impact Fee program. The most recent update to the City’s transportation impact
fee occurred on January 1, 2018, and was based on the previous 2018-2023 TIP.
Transportation impact fees are updated annually to stay current with the need to fund road
capacity projects identified in the recently adopted 2019-2024 TIP. The update accounts for
changes to the project list, updated funding needs, and the portion of each projects cost which
is attributable to new development. The update also accounts for revised growth forecasts
developed as part of the 2015 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update, and includes
updated trip generation information published in the 10th Edition of the Trip Generation Manual
published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). These changes will ensure that the
collection of impact fees is consistent with the capacity projects identified in the current TIP.
Impact Fee Project List Changes
Not all of the projects included in the TIP are included in the impact fee program. Only projects
which increase vehicular capacity at intersections and along roadway segments are eligible to
be included in the impact fee program. A list of the projects included in the impact fee
calculations is included as an attachment to this memo.
The majority of the projects included in the impact fee program are carried over from the
previous year, but have been revised as appropriate to reflect current funding needs. Three
projects have been removed from the list because they have been completed, combined with
other projects, or they have moved beyond year six in the current TIP. Five new projects have
been added based on changes to anticipated funding for the project or new capacity needs.
Impact Fee Project Cost Changes
Table 1 summarizes the total cost for the capacity projects which are included in the traffic
impact fee program and the portion of this total cost which the traffic impact fee actually funds
Page 146 of 160
(unfunded growth costs). The table also provides a comparison of the cost basis for the
previous (2016 and 2017), current (2018), and proposed updates (2019).
Table 1. Impact Fee Project Cost Comparison
Year Total Eligible Cost Unfunded Growth Cost
2016 $104,425,000 $61,985,000
2017 $103,622,000 $65,083,309
2018 $107,666,000 $67,123,000
2019 $98,098,000 $61,569,141
As shown in the table, the total cost for the capacity projects has decreased by approximately
$10M from 2018. Consistent with that, the unfunded impact fee portion of the costs has also
decreased, by approximately $6M. The level of service analysis used to determine the existing
deficiency potion and future growth portion of each project was updated based on the most
recent (2018) count data collected by the City.
Citywide Growth Trips
The proposed 2019 update is based on the number of growth trips forecast in the 2015
Comprehensive Transportation Plan. The plan anticipated 16,100 additional trips would be
generated by new land uses developed within the City between 2012 and 2035. This total
number was reduced by the number of growth trips which are estimated to have already
occurred since 2012. Currently, approximately 13,500 additional growth trips are anticipated
between 2019 and 2035.
Trip Rate Changes
The City uses the information published in the Trip Generation Trip Generation Handbook to
determine the traffic impact fee rates for the individual land-use categories included in the fee
schedule. The ITE recently published the 10th Edition of the Handbook which included updated
trip rate information and included some new land use categories. These changes have been
incorporated into the traffic impact fee program as part of this update. The changes to the trip
generation rates have reduced the traffic impact fees for certain land-uses included in the fee
schedule.
Proposed Citywide Transportation Impact Fees
The current cost per new PM Peak hour trip in the transportation impact fee rate schedule is
$3,889.62. The changes identified above increase the impact fee per weekday PM peak hour
trip by $348.68 to a total of $4,238.30. The increase, approximately 9 percent, is attributable to
the current amount of funding being sought through the impact fee program. This fee is
applicable to all new uses citywide except in Lakeland Hills and the Downtown Urban Center
(DUC) zone as described below.
Downtown Urban Center Zone Rate
In an effort to acknowledge the trip generation characteristics of the downtown urban center, the
City added a second zone to the transportation impact fee program. The program charges
reduced impact fees for development occurring in the downtown urban center. The applicable
downtown area in which fees are reduced is shown in Figure 1.
Reduced impact fees for the downtown urban center account for anticipated reduced trip
generation resulting from the availability of transit service (both bus and rail), the completeness
Page 147 of 160
of non-motorized facilities, and the close proximity of complementary land-uses (retail,
commercial, medical, etc.). This provides a better nexus between transportation impact fees and
the impacts of development in the downtown urban center.
The following reductions are used for each land use category in the downtown urban center:
Residential, Lodging, and Medical -19%
Recreation, Institutional, Retail, and Service -26%
Office -32%
Citywide and separate Downtown Transportation Impact fee rates are shown in Table 2.
National and local data was used to estimate the reductions for downtown land-uses in Auburn.
This approach is consistent with other local jurisdictions, including the City’s of Federal Way and
Kent.
Lakeland Hills Rate
Transportation mitigation fees for Lakeland Hills were established in 1998 by Resolution 2955.
At that time the initial impact fees were identified for detached single-family units, attached
single-family and multi-family units, senior family residential units, and commercial and retail
space. The fees are updated annually based on the Consumer Price Index for the Seattle-
Metropolitan area. The most recent annual data shows that during the previous 12 month
period, prices have increased by 3.0 percent.
TIF Comparison by Agency
Included in your packet is a comparison of the basic transportation impact fee for 60 Western
Washington Cities and 5 Counties. The comparison shows that Auburns current fee is about
average. Even with the increase proposed for next year, our fee would remain similar to Federal
Way, and lower than Puyallup, Covington, Kent, Bonney Lake, and Maple Valley.
Page 148 of 160
VETERANSMEMORIALPARK
AUBURNENVIRONMENTALPARK
BICENTENNIALPARK
STREETMALL
BSTREETPLAZA
AUBURN
HIGH
SCHOOL
WEST
AUBURN
HIGH
SCHOOL WASHINGTON
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
MESSIAH
LUTHERAN
CHURCH
SCHOOL
S R 1 8
W MAIN ST
E MAIN ST
2ND ST SEASTSE 4TH ST N E
FSTSE4TH ST SEESTNE JSTNECSTNWISTSEDSTSEJSTSEHSTNW2ND ST NE
ESTSEHSTSEGSTSE5TH ST SEDSTNEDSTNW3RDSTNECSTSWCLAYSTNW2NDSTNWASTNWASTSWAUBURNAVENEAUBURNWAYNDSTSWFSTSWESTSW1STSTNESDIVISIONST3RDSTNWGSTSWBSTNEASTNE1STSTSW
5TH ST NE
3RD ST SW
4TH ST SW
6TH ST SENDIVISIONSTFSTNWGSTNWWESTERNAVENWCROSSSTSEAUBURNWAYSHSTNE2NDSTSW
1ST ST NW
PARK AVE NE
TRANSITRDSW5TH ST SW
1ST ST SE
3RD ST SEBSTSWBSTNW ISTNE5TH ST NW
BSTSE2ND ST NW
S R 1 8SR18
HSTSE3RD ST NE
3RD ST SW
1ST ST NE
SR 18BSTNE1STSTSW
3 R D S T S W
DSTSEASTNEASTSW1ST ST NE
SR 18
FSTSE1ST ST SW
4THSTSW
M ap ID :1271PrintedOn:0 8/16/20 10
Auburn Downtown Map
Figure 1 U rban Center B o undary (2 3 1.3 4 Acres)
Auburn C ity Limits1INCH=40 0 FEET
IN FO R M AT IO N SH O W N IS FO R GEN ER AL
R EFER EN C E PU R PO SES O N LY AN D DO ES N O T
N EC ESSAR ILY R EPR ESEN T EXACT GEO GR APH I C
O R CART O GR APH IC DATA AS M APPED .T H E C IT Y O F
AU BU R N M AKES N O W AR R AN T Y AS T O IT S ACC U R ACY.
¬SR167SR 18
ASTSECSTSWBSTNWAUBU
RN
W
AY
SISTNEMSTSEAUBURNWAYN51STAVES124THAVESEWESTVALLEYHWYN132NDAVESE
RSTSE112THAVESEKERSEY
WAYSE
8TH ST NE
37TH STNW
LAKELANDHI
LLSWAYSEDSTNWS 316TH ST
EASTVALLEYHWYSEAUBURN-BLACKDIAMONDRD SE
ELLINGSON RD SW
SE 281STST
OSTSW17TH ST SE 124THAVESEASTSESR 18
Page 149 of 160
B. ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS FEES
1. Transportation Impact Fee Rate Schedule: (Per Ordinance No. 5763 as amended by
Resolution No. 3953, Ordinance No. 6005, Resolution No. 4103, Resolution No. 4424, Resolution
4964, Resolution No. 5114, Resolution No. 5181, Resolution No. 5255, and Resolution No. 5319.)
Land Use
ITE
Land
Use
Code
Independent
Variable
Trip
Rate
Non-Downtown
Fee Rate
Downtown Fee
Rate
Industrial
General Light
Industrial 110 sf/gfa 0.970.
63 $8.02$5.68 -
General Heavy
Industrial 120 sf/gfa 0.68 $6.30 -
Industrial Park 130 sf/gfa 0.850.
40 $7.03$3.60 -
Manufacturing 140 sf/gfa 0.730.
67 $3.62$3.62 -
Warehousing 150 sf/gfa 0.320.
19 $3.70$2.40 -
Mini-
Warehouse/Storage 151 sf/gfa 0.260.
17 $1.98$1.41 -
Residential
Single-Family
(detached) 210 du 1.000.
99
$4,537.89$4,895.2
3
$3,675.69$3,965
.14
Accessory Dwelling
Unit N/A du 0.51 $2,545.52 $2,061.87
Multi-Family without
commercial
220-
233221 du 0.620.
50
$2,974.26$2,613.6
2
$2,409.15$2,117
.03
Multi-Family with
commercial 231 du 0.36 $1,881.80 $1,524.26
Mobile Home 240 du 0.590.
46
$2,141.88$1,819.6
4 -
Senior Housing 251, 252 du 0.270.
28 $980.18$1,107.61 $793.95$897.16
Congregate Care
Facility 253 du 0.17 $672.78 $544.71
Lodging
Hotel 310 room 0.60 $3,111.69$3,390.6
4
$2,520.47$2,746
.42
Motel 320 room 0.470.
38
$2,437.49$2,147.4
0 -
Recreational
Movie Theater 444, 445 seat 0.08 $202.78$220.96 $150.06$163.51
Health Club 492, 493 sf/gfa 3.534.
87 $10.64$16.00 $7.88$11.84
Page 150 of 160
Land Use
ITE
Land
Use
Code
Independent
Variable
Trip
Rate
Non-Downtown
Fee Rate
Downtown Fee
Rate
Institutional
Elementary School 520 student 0.150
.17 $264.49$326.63 $195.73$241.71
Middle School/Jr.
High 522 student 0.160
.17 $448.08$518.77 $331.58$383.89
High School 530 student 0.130
.14 $498.91$585.45 $369.19$433.23
Church 560 sf/gfa 0.550
.49 $2.64$2.56 $1.95$1.90
Day Care Center 565 sf/gfa 12.34
11.12 $24.00$31.42 $17.76$23.25
Library 590 sf/gfa 7.308
.16 $12.07$14.70 $8.93$10.88
Medical
Hospital 610 sf/gfa 0.930
.97 $4.82$5.48 $3.91$4.44
Asst. Living, Nursing
Home 254, 620 bed 0.220
.24 $798.67$949.38 -
Office
General Office 710,
715, 750 sf/gfa 1.491
.24 $8.87$8.04 $6.03$5.47
Small Office 712 sf/gfa 2.45 $15.89 $10.80
Medical Office 720 sf/gfa 3.573
.46 $16.66$17.60 $11.33$11.97
Post Office 732 sf/gfa 11.22
11.21 $18.55$20.19 $12.61$13.73
Retail
Free Standing
Discount Superstore 813 sf/gla 4.354
.33 $8.53$9.12 $6.31$6.75
Free Standing
Discount Store 815 sf/gla 4.984
.83 $11.26$11.89 $8.33$8.80
Hardware/Paint Store 816 sf/gla 4.842
.68 $7.90$4.76 $5.84$3.53
Shopping Center 820 sf/gla 3.713
.81 $6.67$7.46 $4.93$5.52
Car Sales – New 841840 sf/gla 2.595
.13 $12.36$26.67 $9.14$19.74
Car Sales – Used 841 sf/gla 3.75 $19.50 $14.43
Automobile Parts
Sales 843 sf/gla 5.984
.91 $7.51$6.72 $5.56$4.97
Tire Store 848 sf/gla 4.153
.98 $8.52$8.91 $6.31$6.59
Supermarket 850 sf/gla 9.481
0.94 $16.52$20.77 $12.22$15.37
Convenience Market 851 sf/gla 52.41
49.11 $34.45$44.20 $25.49$32.71
Page 151 of 160
Home Improvement
Store 862 sf/gla 2.33 $3.30$4.01 $2.44$2.97
Drugstore w/o Drive-
Through 880 sf/gla 8.408
.51 $8.70$9.61 $6.44$7.11
Drugstore w/ Drive-
Through 881 sf/gla 9.911
0.29 $11.14$12.60 $8.24$9.33
Marijuana Dispensary 882 sf/gla 21.83 $113.49 $83.99
Furniture Store 890 sf/gla 0.450
.52 $0.47$0.59 $0.35$0.43
Land Use
ITE
Land
Use
Code
Independent
Variable
Trip
Rate
Non-Downtown
Fee Rate
Downtown Fee
Rate
Services
Drive-in Bank 912 sf/gfa 24.302
0.45 $25.05$28.17 $18.54$20.85
Quality Restaurant 931 sf/gfa 7.497.
80 $18.49$20.98 $13.68$15.53
High Turnover
Restaurant 932 sf/gfa 9.859.
77 $16.74$18.10 $12.39$13.39
Fast Food Restaurant
w/o Drive-Through 933 sf/gfa 26.152
8.34 $34.58$40.84 $25.59$30.22
Fast Food Restaurant
w/ Drive-Through 934 sf/gfa 32.653
2.67 $43.18$46.16 $31.95$34.16
Espresso Stand w/
Drive-Through 938 sf/gfa 75.008
3.33 $33.06$40.03 $24.47$29.62
Auto Care Center 942 sf/gfa 3.11 $6.21$6.77 $4.60$5.01
Service Station 944 vfp 13.871
4.03
$17,731.23$19,54
3.60
$13,121.11$14,4
62.26
Service Station w/
Mini-Mart 945 vfp 13.511
3.99
$13,102.15$14,79
3.91
$9,695.59$10,94
0.09
Lakeland PUD (Per Ordinance No. 4867 as amended by Resolution No. 2955, Ordinance
No. 6176 and Resolution No. 5181.)
Detached Single-
Family Residential
Unit
N/A du n/a $1,307.06$1,352.8
3 -
Attached Single-
Family/Multi-Family
Unit
N/A du n/a $848.37878.08 -
Senior-Family Unit N/A du n/a $291.53$301.74 -
Commercial/Retail
Units N/A sf/gfa n/a $3.39$3.51 -
Administrative Fee for Independent Fee Calculation $200205.00
Page 152 of 160
Notes:
A. Basic trip rates are based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition.
B. Impact fee rate calculation is based upon the following methodology:
– Basic Trip Rate = PM Peak Hour Trip Generation (per unit of measure)
– Basic Trip Rate x Percent of New Trips x Trip Length Adjustment x Per Trip Fee/(divide
by) 1,000 for rate per square foot (where applicable) = Impact Fee Rate (per unit of measure)
C. For land uses not specifically identified here, trip generation rates could be derived from ITE
or a special study by the applicant.
D. sf/GFA= Square feet Gross Floor Area; sf/GLA= Square Feet Gross Leasable Area;
VFP=Vehicle Fueling Position.
E. Projects eligible for the Downtown Fee Rate are those located entirely within the boundary
identified on Figure 1.
Page 153 of 160
2. Truck-Dependant Land Use Supplementary Transportation Impact Fee Rate Schedule:
(Per Resolution No. 4122, Resolution No. 4424, Resolution No. 5181, and Resolution No. 5319.)
Land Use
ITE Land
Use Code
Independent
Variable
Truck
Trip Rate
Impact Fee Rate
(per sf)
Industrial
Light Industry/Manufacturing 110, 130,
140 sf/gfa 0.06 $0.12
Heavy Industry 120 sf/gfa 0.04 $0.07$0.08
Retail
Shopping Center 820
sf/gla 0.01 $0.
02
Car Sales 841 sf/gfa 0.09 $0.14
Supermarket 850 sf/gfa 0.33 $0.62$0.64
Free-Standing Discount Store 813, 815,
861, 863,
864
sf/gfa 0.10 $0.19$0.20
Home Improvement Store 862 sf/gfa 0.37 $0.70$0.73
Land Use
ITE Land
Use Code
Independent
Variable
Truck
Trip Rate
Impact Fee Rate
(per sf)
Services
Restaurant 931, 932 sf/gfa 0.63 $1.18$1.23
Fast Food Restaurant 933, 934 sf/gfa 2.87 $5.41$5.60
Notes:
A. ITE Land Use Code based on ITE Trip Generation, 910th Edition
B. Impact fee rate calculation is based upon the following methodology:
- Truck Trip Rate = Daily Truck Trip Generation (per unit of measure)
- Truck Trip Rate x Per Trip Fee = Impact Fee Rate (per unit of measure)
C. For land uses not specifically identified in the table, trip generation rates could be derived
from a special study by the applicant.
D. sf /gfa=square feet of gross floor area
Page 154 of 160
Traffic Impact Fee Project List
Ongoing TIP Projects to remain on the Transportation Impact Fee List
- TIP I-5: Harvey Rd NE/8th Street NE Intersection Improvements
- TIP I-6: Lake Tapps Parkway ITS Expansion
- TIP I-8: 29th St SE/R Street SE Intersection Improvements
- TIP I-12: C St SW/15th St SW Intersection Improvements
- TIP I-13: 124th Ave SE/SE 320th St Intersection Improvements
- TIP I-14: 124th Ave SE/SE 284th St Intersection Safety Improvements
- TIP N-5: F Street SE Non-Motorized Improvements (Downtown to Les Gove)
- TIP N-8: Evergreen Heights SRTS
- TIP R-2: I Street NE Corridor (45th St NE to S 277th St)
- TIP R-3: M Street Underpass (3rd St SE to 8th St SE)
- TIP R-4: A Street Loop
- TIP R-5: A Street NW, Phase 2 (W Main St to 3rd St NW)
- TIP R-6: Auburn Way S Widening (Hemlock St SE to Poplar St SE)
- TIP R-7: M Street NE (E Main St to 4th St NE)
- TIP R-8: 49th Street NE (Auburn Way N to I St SE)
- TIP R-9: 46th Place S Realignment
- TIP R-11: 124th Ave SE Corridor (SE 312th St to SE 318th St)
- TIP R-12: R Street Bypass (M St SE to SR-18)
- TIP R-13: SE 320th Corridor Improvements (116th Ave SE to 122nd Ave SE)
- TIP R-14: W Valley Highway Improvements (15th St NW to W Main St)
- TIP R-16: Auburn Regional Growth Center Access Improvements
- TIP R-17: M Street SE Improvements (8th St SE to Auburn Way S)
- TIP R-20: Lea Hill Road Segment 1 (Harvey Rd/M St SE 105th Pl S)
- TIP R-21: Lea Hill Road Segment 2 (105th Pl S to 112th Ave SE)
- TIP R-22: Lea Hill Road Segment 3 (112th Ave SE to 124th Ave SE)
- TIP R-23: West Valley Hwy Improvements (SR-18 to 15th St SW)
- TIP S-1: A Street NW, Phase 1 (3rd St NW to 14th St NW)
- TIP S-2: S 277th Street Environmental Monitoring
- TIP S-3: A St SE/Lakeland Hills Way Intersection Study
- TIP S-4: Kersey Way SE Corridor Study
New TIP Projects to be added to the Transportation Impact Fee List
- TIP I-7: SE 320th St/116th Ave SE Roundabout
- TIP I-9: M St SE/29th St SE Intersection Safety Improvements
- TIP I-10: R St SE/21st St SE Intersection Safety Improvements
- TIP I-11: Auburn Way S/6th St SE Intersection Improvements
- TIP I-15: 10th St NW/A St NW Intersection Improvements
TIP Projects removed from the Transportation Impact Fee List
- TIP #12: BNSF Railyard Grade Separation
- TIP #15: 8th St NE Widening (Pike St NE to R St NE)
- TIP #53: AWS/12th Street Intersection Improvements
Page 155 of 160
$363
$515
$589
$603
$755
$900
$948
$1,008
$1,165
$1,244
$1,321
$1,436
$1,573
$1,742
$1,770
$1,875
$1,924
$2,017
$2,026
$2,102
$2,111
$2,149
$2,192
$2,195
$2,244
$2,334
$2,400
$2,407
$2,453
$2,476
$2,500
$2,606
$2,665
$2,761
$2,800
$2,822
$2,835
$2,919
$3,000
$3,000
$3,051
$3,199
$3,239
$3,355
$3,416
$3,432
$3,459
$3,498
$3,499
$3,500
$3,705
$3,822
$3,875
$3,956
$3,986
$3,995
$4,153
$4,350
$4,413
$4,461
$4,471
$4,500
$4,500
$4,561
$4,632
$4,989
$5,151
$6,300
$6,413
$6,475
$6,650
$6,941
$7,224
$7,291
$7,944
$8,183
$8,348
$9,320
$10,563
$0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000
Clark County
Kitsap County
Oak Harbor
Carnation
Blaine
Anacortes
Burien
Bham UV Max 50%
Sumner
Tukwila
Yelm
Snohomish
Bham Urban Villages
Pierce County
Vancouver
Mukilteo
Lacey
Bellingham
Milton
Gig Harbor
Lynden
Orting
Washougal
Stanwood
Sequim
Thurston County
Everett
Sedro Wooley
Snohomish County
Lake Stevens
Granite Falls
Shelton
Burlington
Woodinville
Renton
Ridgefield
Poulsbo
Battleground
Ferndale
Mill Creek
Camas
University Place
Enumclaw
Arlington
Tumwater
Mount Lake Terrace
Monroe
Olympia
WA Average TIF
SeaTac
Kirkland
Auburn
Federal Way
Mercer Island
Maple Valley
Bonney Lake
Buckley
Sultan
Edgewood
Covington
Kent
La Center
Puyallup
Edmonds
Bainbridge Island
Bellevue
Des Moines
Marysville
Fife
Newcastle
Redmond
Bothell
Shoreline
Mount Vernon
Lynnwood
Duvall
Issaquah
Kenmore
North Bend
Chart TitleComparison of 2017-2018 TIF Base Rates in 72* Cities and 5 Counties in Western Washington
With Whatcom County Cities and Bellingham's Urban Village TIF Reductions Highlighted for Emphasis
[*City of Sammamish, WA $14,707 TIF base rate excluded from graphic due to size -see TIF rate table on next page]
Data compiled October 2017 by Chris Comeau, AICP-CTP, Transportation Planner, Bellingham Public Works ccomeau@cob.org or (360) 778-7946
Cost Per P.M. Peak Hour (4:00 -6:00pm) Vehicle Trip
Page 156 of 160
2018 Transportation Impact Fee Comparison: 72 Cities + 5 Counties in Western Washington
Data compiled October 2017 from public web sites, telephone calls, and email inquiries by
Chris Comeau, AICP-CTP, Transportation Planner, Bellingham Public Works ccomeau@cob.org or (360) 778-7946
2018 2018 2018 2018
City Population
Base
Rate
CBD-
Incentive City Population
Base
Rate
CBD-
Incentive
Anacortes1 16,780 $900 Mill Creek 19,960 $3,000
Arlington 18,690 $3,355 Milton 7,900 $2,026
Auburn2 78,960 $3,822 $3,479 Monroe 18,350 $3,459
Bainbridge
Island 23,950 $4,632 Mount Vernon 34,360 $7,291
Battleground 20,370 $2,919
Mount Lake
Terrace 21,290 $3,432
Bellevue 140,700 $4,989 Mukilteo 21,240 $1,875
Bellingham3 86,720 $2,017 $1,573 Newcastle 11,280 $6,475
Blaine4 5,075 $755 North Bend18 6,605 $10,563
Bonney Lake 20,500 $3,995 Oak Harbor19 22,840 $589
Bothell 44,370 $6,941 Olympia20 52,160 $3,498 $1,287
Buckley 4,670 $4,153 Orting 7,835 $2,149
Burien5 50,680 $948 Poulsbo 10,510 $2,835
Burlington 8,715 $2,665 Puyallup 40,500 $4,500
Camas6 23,080 $3,051 Redmond21 62,100 $6,650
Carnation 2,030 $603 Renton 102,700 $2,800
Covington 19,850 $4,461 Ridgefield 7,235 $2,822
Des Moines 30,860 $5,151 Sammamish22 62,240 $14,707
Duvall 7,500 $8,183 SeaTac 28,850 $3,500
Edgewood 10,420 $4,413 Sedro Wooley23 10,950 $2,407 $1,341
Edmonds 41,260 $4,561 Sequim 7,280 $2,244 $2,020
Enumclaw 11,450 $3,239 Shelton 10,120 $2,606
Everett 109,800 $2,400 Shoreline 55,060 $7,224
Federal Way7 96,350 $3,875 Snohomish 10,010 $1,436
Ferndale8 13,470 $3,000 $2,550 Stanwood 6,785 $2,195
Fife9 10,100 $6,413 Sultan 5,030 $4,350
Gig Harbor 9,500 $2,102 Sumner 9,920 $1,165
Granite Falls 3,485 $2,500 Tukwila24 19,660 $1,244
Issaquah10 36,030 $8,348 Tumwater 23,210 $3,416
Kenmore11 22,580 $9,320 University Place 31,440 $3,199
Kent12 127,100 $4,471 $3,223 Vancouver25 162,400 $1,770
Kirkland 86,080 $3,705 Washougal 13,807 $2,192
La Center13 3,195 $4,500 Woodinville26 9,200 $2,761
Lacey 48,700 $1,924 Yelm 6,242 $1,321
Lake Stevens14 31,740 $2,476 County Population
Base
Rate
Lynden15 13,620 $2,111 Clark County27 471,000 $363
Lynnwood16 36,950 $7,944 $5,107 Kitsap County 240,862 $515
Maple Valley17 24,900 $3,986 Pierce County 796,836 $1,742
Marysville 65,900 $6,300
Snohomish
County 694,571 $2,453
Mercer Island 24,210 $3,956 Thurston County28 256,591 $2,334
Notes: All data above obtained from public web sites, telephone, and email inquiries.
1. Anacortes has a very old TIF system, which is being updated, and new TIF rates of $3,000 anticipated in 2018..
2. Auburn adopted rates August 1, 2013.
3. In Urban Villages, Bellingham allows automatic 22% to 25% TIF reduction and voluntary TDM performance measures up to 50% T IF reduction.
4. The City of Blaine future pm peak hour vehicle trip rate is currently being evaluated.
5. Burien limited improvement project costs to keep rates low. TIF was adopted in 2009.
6. Camas uses a 2-zone TIF system; Average = $3,051.
7. Federal Way charges 3% non-refundable admin. fee + base rate + 3-yr WSDOT construction cost index. SF fee = City 2014 rate schedule summary
8. Ferndale uses 3-zone TIF system. $3,000 citywide; $3,750 for 443-acre "Main Street" Planned Action; $2,550 downtown Ferndale.
9. Fife uses a VMT-based TIF system adjusted from ITE ADT rates.
10. Issaquah created development incentive in which the first 10,000 SF of commercial TIF paid from other public funding sour ces (per WA State law).
11. Kenmore uses a "Person Trip" based TIF system.
12. Kent TIF rates are based on 30% of maximum rate from Rate Study (May 2010) and downtown Kent rate memorandum.
13. La Center allows TIF to be deferred to occupancy by requiring lien on property.
14. Lake Stevens uses a 3-zone TIF system; average - $2,476
15. Lynden TIF allows up to 50% reduction in industrial areas where there is a significant chance that grants can be obtained.
16. Lynnwood has two TIF zones and reduces TIF by 15% (per ITE) in portion of City Center.
17. Maple Valley fee per 2013 rate schedule (R-13-909 Jan 28, 2013)
18. North Bend is similar to Sammamish in that most development is residential with little to no pass-by, diverted link trips.
19. Oak Harbor uses a very old TIF system.
20. Olympia TIF allows up to 20% reduction in downtown for accepted TDM performance measures.
21. Redmond uses "Person Trips/Mobility Units" for Concurrency and TIF
22. Sammamish has highest TIF ($14,707) in all of Washington due to primarily residential development with little to no pass-by, diverted link trips.
23. Sedro-Woolley uses a 15-zone TIF system; Average = $2,407; TIF reduction in downtown Sedro-Woolley
24. Tukwila = 4-zone TIF system: Average =$1,244
25. Vancouver uses 5-zone ADT-based TIF system; Average = $1,770.
26. Woodinville calculates ADT; Average = $2,761.
27. Clark County has a four zone TIF system, similar to City of Vancouver, based on ADT; Average $363
28. Thurston County uses a 6-zone TIF system; Average = $2,334
Page 157 of 160
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Matrix
Date:
October 18, 2018
Department:
Council
Attachments:
Special Focus Areas Key
Matrix
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
Background Summary:
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:
Meeting Date:October 22, 2018 Item Number:
Page 158 of 160
Revised 01-08-2018
HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES FINANCE & ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
PUBLIC WORKS & COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES
HUMAN SERVICES FUNDING CITY BUDGET & AMENDMENTS UTILITIES POLICE
PUBLIC WELLNESS RISK MANAGEMENT ZONING, CODES & PERMITS SCORE JAIL
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SERVICES EQUIPMENT RENTAL INNOVATION & TECHNOLOGY DISTRICT COURT
HOMELESSNESS SERVICES FACILITIES TRANSPORTATION PARKS & RECREATION
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CITY REAL PROPERTY STREETS ANIMAL CONTROL
COMMUNITY SERVICES LEGAL ENGINEERING SOLID WASTE
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES CAPITAL PROJECTS EMERGENCY PLANNING
MEDICAL COMMUNITY RELATIONS BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT SUSTAINABILITY AIRPORT
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AIRPORT BUSINESSES
CULTURAL ARTS & PUBLIC ARTS SISTER CITIES
PLANNING MULTIMEDIA
Councilmember Trout-Manuel, Chair Councilmember Holman, Chair Councilmember DaCorsi, Chair Councilmember Brown, Chair
Councilmember Wales, Vice Chair Councilmember Brown, Vice Chair Deputy Mayor Baggett, Vice Chair Councilmember Peloza, Vice Chair
2018 MEETING DATES 2018 MEETING DATES 2018 MEETING DATES 2018 MEETING DATES
January 22, 2018 February 12, 2018 February 26, 2018 January 8, 2018
March 26, 2018 April 9, 2018 April 23, 2018 March 12, 2018
May 29, 2018 June 11, 2018 June 25, 2018 May 14, 2018
July 23, 2018 August 13, 2018 August 27, 2018 July 9, 2018
September 24, 2018 October 8, 2018 October 22, 2018 September 10, 2018
November 26, 2018 December 10, 2018 December 24, 2018 November 13, 2018
SPECIAL FOCUS AREAS
Page 159 of 160
Updated 10-15-2018
NO.TOPIC Chair STAFF LEAD(S)STUDY SESSION REVIEW
DATE(S)
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
SUMMARY ACTION DATE
1
Capital Projects Update and
Featured Capital Project
Discussion
Chair DaCorsi
Vice Chair Deputy Mayor
Baggett
Director Gaub 1/14/2019
2 Vacant Housing Discussion
Chair DaCorsi
Vice Chair Deputy Mayor
Baggett
Director Tate 10/22/2018
3 Roads Ad Hoc committee
Report
Chair DaCorsi
Vice Chair Deputy Mayor
Baggett
10/29/2018
4 Affordable Housing Stock
Chair DaCorsi
Vice Chair Deputy Mayor
Baggett
Director Tate 10/22/2018
5 Plastic Bag Ban
Chair DaCorsi
Vice Chair Deputy Mayor
Baggett
Director Tate 1/14/2019
6 Community Court Chair Brown
Vice Chair Peloza Director Martinson 11/13/2018
7 Park Rules Chair Brown
Vice Chair Peloza Director Faber 11/13/2018
8 Graffiti Chair Brown
Vice Chair Peloza
Director Tate/Chief
Pierson
11/13/2018
9 Auburn Avenue Theater
Update
Chair Brown
Vice Chair Peloza Director Faber 11/13/2018
10 One Table Presentation Chair Trout-Manuel
Vice Chair Wales Director Hinman 11/26/2018
11 Blue Ribbon Committee
Update
Chair Trout-Manuel
Vice Chair Wales Director Hinman 11/26/2018
12
Cost of Service Study -
Planning and Development
Fees
Chair Holman
Vice Chair Brown Director Coleman
10/8/2018
13 Identity Theft Chair Holman
Vice Chair Brown City Attorney Gross
TBD
14 Annexations (islands and
peninsulas)
Chair Holman
Vice Chair Brown City Attorney Gross 12/10/2018
15 Gambling/Card Room
Revenue
Chair Holman
Vice Chair Brown Director Coleman 12/10/2018
COUNCIL MATRIX
Page 160 of 160