HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019.07.08 Council Workshop PacketWorkshop Meeting
AGENDA
PASCO CITY COUNCIL
7:00 p.m.
July 8, 2019
Page
1. CALL TO ORDER:
2. ROLL CALL:
(a) Pledge of Allegiance
3. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS:
4. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
3 - 107 (a) Presentation - Supportive Housing Model
108 - 123 (b) PSD 2018 Capital Facility Plan Update and Impact Fee Report
124 - 136 (c) Code Amendment: Minimum Lot Size & Frontage in Zones R-2
through R-4
137 - 141 (d) Housekeeping Ordinances - Criminal Offenses
142 - 147 (e) Pasco Multi-Modal Update
5. MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL DISCUSSION:
6. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
7. ADJOURNMENT.
REMINDERS:
• Monday, July 8, 6:00 p.m. - Fireman Pension Board - Conference Room 1 (Mayor
Watkins, Rep.; Councilmember Maloney, Alt.)
This meeting is broadcast live on PSC-TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and
streamed at www.pasco-wa.gov/psctvlive.
Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact the Clerk for assistance.
Page 1 of 147
Workshop Meeting July 8, 2019
Spanish language interpreter service may be provided upon request. Please provide
two business day's notice to the City Clerk to ensure availability. (Servicio de
intérprete puede estar disponible con aviso. Por favor avisa la Secretaria Municipal
dos días antes para garantizar la disponibilidad.)
Page 2 of 147
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council July 10, 2019
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 7/8/19
FROM: Angela Pashon, City Clerk
Administrative & Community Services
SUBJECT: Presentation - Supportive Housing Model
I. REFERENCE(S):
Catholic Charities Supportive Housing Presentation
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
At the Council Workshop February 26, 2018, representatives presented from several
community housing resources. Presenters indicated the absence of low-barrier housing
as a significant factor in local homelessness.
In mid-2018, Hot Spotters created a work group to explore options that would provide
additional low-barrier housing options in our region. The work group identified the
Catholic Charities of Eastern Washington’s (CCEW) supportive housing model.
Through coordination with the Consistent Care and CCEW, a market study was
conducted. The market study confirmed the need for a supportive housing project in
the Tri-Cities region as discussed during the aforementioned housing workshop.
CCEW had developed, owns and operates several low-barrier projects in the Spokane-
metro area.
V. DISCUSSION:
CCEW has been evaluating the possibility of a similar development in the Tri -Cities.
Jonathan Mallahan, Vice President of Housing for CCEW, will provide an overview of
Page 3 of 147
the supportive housing model and how this model has been implemented in Spokane.
Page 4 of 147
Pasco City Council
July 2019Page 5 of 147
Catholic Charities
Permanent Supportive
Housing Program
125 family and 200 individual units (150 in Spokane, 50 in Walla Walla)
100 additional units opening in 2020
New construction primarily financed through 9% LIHTC and Housing Trust Fund loans
Housing operations supported with project and tenant based vouchers
Housing first requires more than removing barriers to housing
Integrated, supportive services are critical
Lack of funding for these services is a barrier to development and successful management
Page 6 of 147
Who do we
serve?
Chronic Homelessness
Homeless for 12 months or
multiple times over last two years
Struggling with serious disability
which may include mental illness
and substance abuse disorder
High utilizers of emergency
services
Significant barriers to housing
Page 7 of 147
Supportive
Service Funding
McKinney Vento (CoC), Local and
State Grants
Foundational Community Supports
(FCS) Washington Medicaid
Expansion Program
Supportive Housing Services
Fee-for-service model
Behavioral Health Services also
reimbursable by Medicaid
This reduced reliance on local
and state grant funding
Page 8 of 147
Emergency Service
Impact
SPDAT measures level of need
High scores mean high reliance
on services
After 12 months in PSH housing,
residents show a 32% decrease in
SPDAT score
Page 9 of 147
Questions?Page 10 of 147
Market Study
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis | Pasco, Washington
as of January 16, 2019
Prepared for
Catholic Charities Spokane
Robert J. McCann
Prepared by
Jeremy Streufert, MAI
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
601 Union Street, Suite 4720
Seattle, WA 98101
206.205.0200 l Fax 206.205.0220
jeremys@kiddermathews.com
kiddermathews.com
Page 11 of 147
601 Union Street, Suite 4720 Seattle, WA 98101 T 206.205.0200 F 206.205.0220 kiddermathews.com
January 16, 2019
Robert J. McCann
Catholic Charities Spokane
12 E. 5th Ave.
Spokane, WA 99202
RE: Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
To Be Determined
Pasco, WA
Dear Dr. Robert McCann:
At your request, I have prepared a Market Study that examines the need for affordable housing
in the greater Tri-Cities market concentrating on the homeless and unstably housed
demographic. This study seeks to establish baseline need to support a prototype 50-unit
permanent supportive housing project intended to serve homeless households with a
preference/priority for the chronically homeless in the greater Tri-Cities area. It is noted there is
no specific property or project identified and this analysis is general in scope.
This study has been prepared in conformance with the Uniform Standards of Professional
Appraisal Practice (USPAP). In addition, our services comply with and are subject to the Code of
Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Practice of the Appraisal Institute.
I hope that the study that follows will assist you and Iappreciate the opportunity to be of service.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeremy P. Streufert, MAI
State-certified General Real Estate
Appraiser #1101799
JPS/sh
Page 12 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Page ii
Certification
I certify that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:
1) The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct.
2) The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported
assumptions and limiting conditions, and are our personal, impartial and unbiased
professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions.
3) I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and
no personal interest with respect to the parties involved.
4) I have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties
involved with this assignment.
5) My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting
predetermined results.
6) My compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or
reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the
amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a
subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal.
7) The reported analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report has been
prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.
8) I have not made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. There
is no specific subject property that is part of this analysis.
9) I have not provided professional appraisal or consulting services concerning the subject property
within the past three years.
10) No one provided significant real property appraisal assistance to the persons signing this
certification.
11) The reported analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report has been
prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards
of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute.
12) The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to
review by its duly authorized representatives.
13) As of the date of this report, Jeremy Streufert, MAI have completed the continuing education
program for Designated Members of the Appraisal Institute.
Jeremy P. Streufert, MAI
State-certified General Real Estate
Appraiser #1101799
Page 13 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Page iii
Limiting Conditions
Limiting conditions specific to this appraisal are:
1) Physical dimensions for the property were taken from public records or from information
provided, and the appraiser assumes no responsibility in connection with such matters.
Any sketch or identified survey of the property included in this report is only for the purpose
of assisting the reader to visualize the property.
2) It is assumed that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or
structures (including asbestos, soil contamination, or unknown environmental factors) that
render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for
arranging the studies that may be required to discover them.
3) No responsibility is assumed for the legal description or for matters including legal or title
considerations.
4) The information identified in this report as being furnished by others is believed to be
reliable, but no warranty is given for its accuracy.
5) The appraiser is not required to give testimony or attendance in court by reason of this
appraisal unless arrangements have previously been made.
6) The allocation of total value to land, buildings, or any fractional part or interest as shown in
this report, is invalidated if used separately in conjunction with any other appraisal.
7) Valuation Advisory Services is a subsidiary of Kidder Mathews, a full service commercial
real estate brokerage firm. On occasion, employees or agents of the firm have interests in
the property being appraised. When present, interests have been disclosed, and the report
has been made absent of any influence from these parties.
RESTRICTION UPON DISCLOSURE & USE:
Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions as to value, the
identity of the appraiser or the firm with which they are connected, or any reference to the
Appraisal Institute or to the MAI designation) shall be disseminated to the public through
advertising media, public relations media, news media, sales media or any other public means of
communication without the prior written consent and approval of the appraiser. No part of this
report or any of the conclusions may be included in any offering statement, memorandum,
prospectus or registration without the prior written consent of the appraiser.
Page 14 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Page iv
Table of Contents
Letter of Transmittal .............................................................................................................. i
Certification .......................................................................................................................... ii
Limiting Conditions .............................................................................................................. iii
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 1
Prototype Project Envisioned ............................................................................................... 7
Demographic Profile .......................................................................................................... 11
Housing Profile .................................................................................................................. 16
MULTIFAMILY MARKET ANALYSIS .................................................................................... 26
AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERVIEW ................................................................................. 33
Homelessness Profile ........................................................................................................ 45
Conclusion & Findings ....................................................................................................... 67
ADDENDUM
Regional Overview
Homeless Definitions
Appraiser’s Experience
Page 15 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Executive Summary
Page 1
Executive Summary
Page 16 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Executive Summary
Page 2
Executive Summary
Purpose of Study This market study seeks to establish baseline need for a prototype 50-unit
permanent supportive housing project intended to serve homeless
households with a preference/priority for the chronically homeless in the
greater Tri-Cities area. It is noted there is no specific property or project
identified and this analysis is general in scope.
Scope of Study The basic outline of this market study includes a conceptual description of
a typical 50-unit prototype permanent supportive housing project. This
follows with a general Demographic and Housing Profile for the Tri-Cities
area. A Homelessness Profile is then presented that narrows from
nationwide trends to data that can be ascertained at a local level. Finally,
an estimate of baseline demand to support a 50-unit prototype project is
reconciled the preceding analysis. The bulk of the data presented comes
from government sources such as the US Census, HUD, Washington
State Department of Commerce with supplemental input from local service
providers and stakeholders.
Assignment
Conditions
The analyses and conclusions in this report are based on the following
definitions and concepts.
SERVICE TYPE Market Demand Study
CLIENT AND
INTENDED USER
The client is Robert J. McCann of Catholic Charities Spokane; the
intended user is Catholic Charities Spokane.
INTENDED USE This market study was prepared for internal planning purposes.
DATE OF REPORT
January 16, 2019
DATE OF
INSPECTION
No site inspection was made as there is not a specific subject site at this
time.
Definitions of
Homelessness
Definitions of what constitutes homelessness can vary by jurisdiction and
within various agencies of government. The primary federal legislation
defining homelessness is the McKinney-Vento Act that has two major
definitions, the education definition (Section 725) and the Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) definition (Section 103).
The HUD definition of homelessness (sometimes referred as “literally”
homeless) used for the Point-in-Time count and homelessness programs
includes individuals and families who:
Page 17 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Executive Summary
Page 3
Are living in a supervised publicly or privately-operated shelter
(including emergency shelter, transitional housing, and safe
havens) designated to provide temporary living arrangements; or
Have a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private
place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping
accommodation for human beings, including a vehicle, park,
abandoned building, bus or train station, airport, or camping
ground (including any sanctioned or unsanctioned encampment
location).
The education (Section 725) definition expands to include children and
youth temporarily “doubled-up” (i.e. sharing housing due to loss of
housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason), migrant workers and
their children, as well as children living in motels. The McKinney-Vento
Act requires public schools to identify homeless children (under this
expanded definition).
The “chronically homeless”, are a subpopulation defined by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
as “an unaccompanied homeless individual with a disabling condition who
has either been continuously homeless for a year or more, or has had at
least four episodes of homelessness in the past three years.” This
definition also applies to heads of household who meet the definition.
Disabling condition used here is defined as a physical disability, mental
illness, depression, alcohol or drug abuse, chronic health problems,
HIV/AIDS, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), or a developmental
disability.
Summary of Key
Findings
The following are demand indicators beginning with the unstably housed
narrowing to the chronically homeless population as described in the
analysis presented in this report.
In the Tri-Cities region (Franklin and Benton Counties) there are
approximately 40,000 individuals (13,600 households) that fall
below 100% of the poverty line. At 50% of the poverty line
(individuals earning less than $6,400 annually or roughly $10,000
for the typical household), there are approximately 16,000
individuals (5,500 households).
Page 18 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Executive Summary
Page 4
Households earning below 50% of the poverty line are much more
likely to be precariously/unstably housed. These people are on
the edge of becoming literally homeless and may be doubled up
with friends or family or paying an extremely high proportion of
their income (more than 50%) for shelter.
The current regional vacancy rate is 1.1% with an average
monthly rent of $830 or more, which can exceed the total annual
income of the typical household at 50% of the poverty line. Even
with financial assistance, these households are unable to find
housing that is affordable and compete with higher income
households for the same housing.
6,350 households are severely cost burdened (housing costs are
more than 50% of household income) for those households
earning less than 30% of area median income. There is
significant need for affordable housing for extremely low-income
households.
According to Census Data, the estimated number of “couch-
homeless” staying with friends has averaged 1,900 persons over
the past three years. Based on profiles from other research
studies, an equal or greater number reported staying with family
than friends before entering a shelter facility. The total “couch-
homeless” is likely double that shown.
In the Tri-Cities region, there were 1,431 homeless students for
the 2017 academic year. An estimated 83% reported a living
situation as “doubled-up” followed by hotel/motel, shelters and
unsheltered. If each student had at least one parent/guardian –
would infer a homeless family population of more than 2,800.
Over the past three years, more than 2,200 people annually
entered the HMIS (Homeless Management Information System)
seeking housing assistance where the average person was
homeless for 41 days. It is noted that these enrollments include
some duplication if the person was served more than once in the
same project or multiple projects.
According the Snapshot of Homelessness, a supplemental report
to the annual Point in Time (PIT) count, there were 845 literally
homeless persons for the month of January in 2017 (2018 figures
not yet available). Over the prior four years, this figure has
averaged about 900 individuals.
Page 19 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Executive Summary
Page 5
According to the 2018 annual PIT count, there were 163
homeless persons counted (80 unsheltered) on a single night in
January. Over the past five years, the total homeless counted
has averaged 217 persons with overall homelessness increasing
15% (6% increase in sheltered and 25% for those unsheltered).
Of those counted during the 2018 PIT count, 26% (43 individuals)
were classified as “chronically” homeless. This population has
averaged about 15% of the overall homeless population (33
individuals) over the past five years and has been increasing over
the past three years.
According to figures provided by the Tri-Cities Union Gospel
Mission, the largest homeless shelter in the region, more than 700
new unique individuals sought shelter in 2018.
CHALLENAGES/
LIMITATIONS
The most conservative homeless demand estimate is the PIT count,
which is a “snapshot” of the population experiencing homelessness on a
given day in January. The following are challenges and limitations of the
street count:
Many homeless do not want to be located, which hampers
detection during the street count – especially families,
undocumented individuals and unaccompanied youth and young
adults.
Unsheltered homeless may be sleeping in vehicles and
abandoned structures that are difficult to identify.
Inherent biases in visual observation of those whose physical
appearance can be mistaken for non-homeless that hide in plain
sight and appear stably housed.
May not be representative of fluctuations and compositional
changes in the population either seasonally or over time.
Recruitment of an adequate number of guides and volunteers to
complete a comprehensive count can be difficult in suburban and
rural areas with large geographies with limited resources
It does not count the number of unique persons experiencing
homelessness over a calendar year, which is higher than a single
point in time. It undercounts those whose homelessness does not
last very long but need services and emergency shelter.
Page 20 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Executive Summary
Page 6
Overall, the count is considered conservative and a measure of the
minimum number of unsheltered individuals experiencing homelessness.
The annual total could easily be greater than two to three times or more
than the PIT count.
Conclusion Based on the HMIS data supplemented with Union Gospel mission
counts, there are typically 700 or more literally homeless individuals in a
given year. The conservative PIT count and anecdotal support from local
service providers suggest a chronically homeless population of at least
30 individuals in a given year.
The prototype project envisioned is a 50-unit permanent supportive
housing project intended to serve homeless households with a
preference/priority for the chronically homeless in the greater Tri-Cities
area. A project of this type would require financial support from the Low-
Income Housing Tax Credit Program (LIHTC) and rental assistance
through HUD or other similar sources.
Assuming a 50-unit prototype project described in this report as a
baseline for development, it is my opinion that baseline homeless
demand (meeting the HUD definition) with a preference/priority for the
chronically homeless is deep enough to support development.
Page 21 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Prototype Project Envisioned
Page 7
Prototype Project Envisioned
Page 22 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Prototype Project Envisioned
Page 8
Prototype Project Envisioned
Introduction The prototype project envisioned is a 50-unit permanent supportive
housing that targets chronically homeless singles. As previously stated,
there is no specific project proposed nor specific property that is part of
this analysis.
Prototype Project The following are example projects of permanent supportive housing
targeting chronic homeless in Spokane developed by Catholic Charities
of Eastern Washington that target the chronically homeless.
All four examples are similar with nearly identical unit configurations that
include a mix of studio and one-bedroom units. All operate under the
Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program (LIHTC) with units restricted to
30%, 40%, 50% and 60% of area median income (AMI); however, they
are operated as if at 30% AMI. In addition to the base LIHTC restrictions,
all restricted units receive rental assistance. Examples programs that
provide rental assistance could include project-based Section 8, Section-
8 vouchers or other programs such as the HUD 811 or other HUD
programs.
Units are in single four-story structures with a security entries, internal
hallways, and elevator access to all floors. Units in these buildings are
designed for homeless populations with safety and durability in mind.
Kitchens have a four-burner cooktop equipped with a timer for automatic
turnoff, built-in microwave, refrigerator, double stainless-steel sink,
laminate countertops, and good quality cabinetry intended for endurance.
Each unit has a central furnace/air conditioning system (locked to prevent
tenant access), and interior doors are all solid core set in metal frames.
Tile is used extensively in the bathroom, again for durability. Assist bars
are installed in all bathrooms. Bathrooms are finished with the same
cabinetry as in the kitchen. Common facilities are located on the ground
floors, with the living units located on floors 2 – 4.
Page 23 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Prototype Project Envisioned
Page 9
Father Bach Haven
(51 units, built 2013)
Buder Haven (51
units, built 2016)
Page 24 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Prototype Project Envisioned
Page 10
Marilee (51 units,
built 2016)
Donna Hanson
Haven (51 units, built
2018)
Page 25 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Demographic Profile
Page 11
Demographic Profile
Page 26 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Demographic Profile
Page 12
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
2000 & 2010 Census, 2018 Estimates & 2023 Projections
Washington
City of
Richland
City of
Kennewick City of Pasco
Benton/
Franklin
Counties
POPULATION
2000 Census Population:5,894,121 39,333 59,304 35,014 191,822
2010 Census Population:6,724,540 48,143 73,910 60,892 253,340
2018 Estimated Population:7,452,102 56,134 82,655 70,486 289,286
2023 Projected Population:7,950,929 60,849 88,475 76,451 311,842
Annual Growth (2000 to 2010):1.4%2.2%2.5%7.4%3.2%
Annual Growth (2018 to 2023):1.3%1.7%1.4%1.7%1.6%
Group Quarter Population - 2010 139,375 285 1,081 385 3,272
% of Total Population 2.1%0.6%1.5%0.6%1.3%
HOUSEHOLDS
2000 Census Households:2,271,398 15,739 22,407 10,660 67,706
2010 Census Households:2,620,076 19,734 27,263 18,372 88,549
2018 Estimated Households:2,874,133 22,832 30,071 20,919 99,587
2023 Projected Households:3,060,684 24,687 32,044 22,571 106,956
Annual Growth (2000 to 2010):1.5%2.5%2.2%7.2%3.1%
Annual Growth (2018 to 2023):1.3%1.6%1.3%1.6%1.5%
HOUSEHOLD SIZE
2010 Census:2.51 2.43 2.67 3.29 2.82
2018 Estimated:2.54 2.44 2.71 3.35 2.86
2023 Projected:2.55 2.45 2.73 3.37 2.88
FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS
2010 Census Households:1,687,455 12,996 18,527 14,180 63,862
2018 Estimated Households:1,839,219 15,024 20,335 16,118 71,529
2023 Projected Households:1,953,791 16,225 21,614 17,374 76,711
PERCENT HOUSEHOLDS IN FAMILIES
2010 Census Households:64.4%65.9%68.0%77.2%72.1%
2018 Estimated Households:64.0%65.8%67.6%77.0%71.8%
2023 Projected Households:63.8%65.7%67.5%77.0%71.7%
PERCENT HOUSEHOLDS IN SINGLE PARENT FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN
2010 Census Households:15.2%14.2%18.7%21.7%17.3%
MEDIAN AGE
2010 Census Households:37.2 39.3 32.7 27.4 32.9
2018 Estimated Households:38.4 40.7 34.1 28.6 34.2
2023 Projected Households:39.1 41.8 34.8 28.9 35.0
PERCENT AGE 65+
2010 Census Households:12.3%14.6%10.9%6.8%10.3%
2018 Estimated Households:15.6%18.6%13.7%8.3%13.0%
2023 Projected Households:17.8%21.3%15.3%9.0%14.9%
INCOME
Per Capita Income (2018):$36,796 $44,257 $29,993 $22,523 $31,111
Average Household Income (2018):$94,203 $108,336 $81,342 $75,421 $88,931
Median Household Income (2018):$68,734 $79,412 $60,002 $58,000 $66,200
OWNER HOUSEHOLDS
2018 Owner Households:1,806,152 14,768 18,845 14,696 68,580
Tenure (% Owner)62.8%64.7%62.7%70.3%68.9%
Median Owner Occupied Value (2018):$332,895 $236,283 $184,992 $176,032 $200,134
Average Owner Occupied Value (2018):$332,895 $236,283 $184,992 $176,032 $200,134
RENTER HOUSEHOLDS
2010 Census Renter Households:946,156 6,667 10,562 6,336 28,568
2018 Estimated Renter Households:1,067,981 8,064 11,226 6,223 31,007
2023 Projected Renter Households:1,112,717 8,424 11,467 6,368 31,812
Annual Growth (2018 to 2023):0.8%0.9%0.4%0.5%0.5%
TENURE (% RENTER)
2010 Census:36.1%33.8%38.7%34.5%32.3%
2018 Estimated:37.2%35.3%37.3%29.7%31.1%
2023 Projected:36.4%34.1%35.8%28.2%29.7%
Source: STBD.com October 2018
Page 27 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Demographic Profile
Page 13
Demographic Profile
Introduction
This demand study focuses on the general Tri-Cities area in the
southeastern portion of Washington State. The area's name stems from
the close proximity of the area’s three major cities, Kennewick and
Richland, located in Benton County, and Pasco, located in Franklin
County. A general economic market overview is included in the
addendum of this report.
Demographic Profile The following estimates and forecast are based on the Washington State
Office of Financial Management and US Census data compiled and
aggregated by ESRI as viewed on STBD.com in September 2018. A
summary demographic profile is provided on the previous table.
Population Trends by
Year
Population is an economic indicator of an area’s vitality as people tend
to migrate to an area that has economic opportunities (i.e. people tend to
follow jobs). It provides insight into how the economy is performing and
how the economy has performed over time.
Population Growth Trends
% Annual % Annual
Census Census Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate % Change % Change
2000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2000-10 2010-18
Washington State 5,894,143 6,724,540 6,767,900 6,817,770 6,882,400 6,968,170 7,061,410 7,183,700 7,310,300 7,427,570 1.4%1.3%
Benton Countya 142,475 175,177 177,900 180,000 183,400 186,500 188,590 190,500 193,500 197,420 2.3%1.6%
Unincorporated County 33,169 32,639 33,020 33,300 33,710 34,020 34,130 34,365 35,085 35,400 -0.2%1.1%
Incorporated County 109,306 142,538 144,880 146,700 149,690 152,480 154,460 156,135 158,415 162,020 3.0%1.7%
Benton City 2,624 3,038 3,145 3,295 3,240 3,255 3,285 3,325 3,360 3,405 1.6%1.5%
Kennewick 54,751 73,917 74,665 75,160 76,410 77,700 78,290 79,120 80,280 81,850 3.5%1.3%
Prosser 4,838 5,714 5,780 5,785 5,810 5,815 5,845 5,940 5,965 6,125 1.8%0.9%
Richland 38,708 48,058 49,090 49,890 51,150 52,090 53,080 53,410 54,150 55,320 2.4%1.9%
West Richland 8,385 11,811 12,200 12,570 13,080 13,620 13,960 14,340 14,660 15,320 4.1%3.7%
Franklin Countya 49,347 78,163 80,500 82,500 84,800 86,600 87,150 88,670 90,330 92,540 5.8%2.3%
Unincorporated County 13,686 13,491 13,665 13,820 13,160 12,820 12,825 12,065 12,540 12,830 -0.1%-0.6%
Incorporated County 35,661 64,672 66,835 68,680 71,640 73,780 74,325 76,605 77,790 79,710 8.1%2.9%
Connell 2,956 4,209 5,150 5,320 5,350 5,330 5,405 5,365 5,450 5,460 4.2%3.7%
Kahlotus 214 193 190 195 195 185 185 185 165 165 -1.0%-1.8%
Mesa 425 489 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 1.5%0.2%
Pasco 32,066 59,781 61,000 62,670 65,600 67,770 68,240 70,560 71,680 73,590 8.6%2.9%
Benton/Franklin 191,822 253,340 258,400 262,500 268,200 273,100 275,740 279,170 283,830 289,960 3.2%1.8%
Source: a Washignton Office of Financial Management
The Tri-Cities is the largest population center within the region at
210,760 people, or 73% of the combined population of Benton &
Franklin Counties.
Currently there are an estimated 289,960 people in Benton & Franklin
counties and this figure is forecast to grow to 311,842 by 2023,
Page 28 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Demographic Profile
Page 14
representing an annual growth of 1.6% and an average growth of 4,376
people per year.
Households Occupied housing units represent households. Currently, there are an
estimated 99,587 households regionally and this figure is forecast to
grow to 106,956 by 2023, representing an annual growth of 1.5% and an
average growth of 1,474 households per year. This rate of growth is
higher than statewide projections.
AVERAGE
HOUSEHOLD SIZE
The average household size in Benton & Franklin counties is 2.86
compared with 2.54 statewide.
% FAMILY
HOUSEHOLDS
The percentage of family households regionally is 71.8% compared with
64.0% statewide. Typically areas with higher percentages of family
households also have a higher average household size, which is shown
by the demographic data.
% SINGLE PARENT
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
CHILDREN
The percentage of single parent households with children regionally is
17.3%. Statewide the estimate is 15.2%.
% HOUSEHOLDS AGE
65 PLUS
The percentage of households with a head of household age 65 or older
is 13.0% regionally compared with 15.6% statewide.
HOUSEHOLDS BY
TENURE
Households are further distinguished by tenure -- households that are
owners and those that are renters. Regionally, renter households
account for 32.3% of all households according to the 2010 Census. This
ratio has gradually decreased over the past decade to a current 2018
estimate of 31.1%
RENTER
HOUSEHOLDS BY AGE
COHORT
The following charts depict the 2010 Census living pattern of renters by
age and household size.
As shown, in the subject's PMA the highest concentration of renters by
age are those under age 25 with 77.7% of all households in this age
cohort renting. This concentration steadily drops off as one gets older
and is more likely to own their home. Propensity to rent increases for
those over age 65. Overall, residents under age 55 represent 77.6% of
all renters in the PMA. 70.8% of all renter households reflect
household sizes with three persons or less.
Page 29 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Demographic Profile
Page 15
3,653 8,217 5,636 4,656 2,910 1,476 1,125 895
12.8%
28.8%
19.7%
16.3%
10.2%
5.2%3.9%3.1%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
<25 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 - 74 75 - 84 85+
2010 Census Renter Households by Age -Benton & Franklin Counties
9,103 6,651 4,471 3,750 2,399 1,229 965
31.9%
23.3%
15.7%
13.1%
8.4%
4.3%3.4%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
1-Person 2-Person 3-Person 4-Person 5-Person 6-Person 7-Person+
2010 Census Renter Households by HH Size -Benton & Franklin Counties
77.7%51.4%34.3%25.3%17.9%16.1%21.1%38.6%87.5%60.6%37.9%28.1%21.8%19.2%23.4%40.4%0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
<25 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 - 74 75 - 84 85+
% Renter by Age (Census 2010) as % of all Households in Age Cohort
Benton/ Franklin Counties
Washington
Page 30 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Housing Profile
Page 16
Housing Profile
Page 31 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Housing Profile
Page 17
Housing Profile
Housing The following section provides a general overview of the housing stock
and housing conditions in Benton/Franklin Counties.
Households and
Housing Units
A "dwelling unit" is defined as a structure or that part of a structure which
is used as a home, residence, or sleeping place by one or more persons
maintaining a common household. These include, but are limited to
single-family residences, two to four-unit multiplexes, apartment buildings
five units and larger, and mobile homes.
Households are the number of people who live in one housing unit.
Households can include a single person, couple or more than one family
and can be related or unrelated.
Every 10 years, the US Census Bureau conducts an actual, physical
census of the nation’s population where a distinction is made between
those living in households and those living in Group Quarters (GQ).
Group quarters are places where people live or stay in a group living
arrangement that is owned or managed by an entity or organization
providing housing and/or services for the residents. These services may
include custodial or medical care, as well as other types of assistance, and
residency is commonly restricted to those receiving these services.
Consequently
Examples of group quarters include institutionalized places such as
correctional facilities and skilled nursing facilitites and noninstituionalized
places such as college residence halls, military baracks, and facilities for
people experiencing homeless such as shelters and transitional housing
that would fall under the other noninstitutionalized category. The overall
group quarter population is typically a small percentage of the overall
population – about 2.1% statewide compared to 2.4% in Franklin County
and 0.8% in Benton County as of the 2010 census. Because census
figures are based on residential dwelling units, a true count of the
homeless (especially the literal homeless) is extremely difficult to
measure. Consequently, as this a shadow population, these figures
undercount the homeless population. A separate Homeless Profile
section follows that focuses on this shadow subpopulation.
Page 32 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Housing Profile
Page 18
Group Quarters Population by Type - 2010 Census
% Total % Total % Total
Statewide Population Population Population
Total Population:6,724,540 78,163 175,177
Total Group Quarters Population:139,375 2.1%1,846 2.4%1,426 0.8%
% Total % Total % Total
GQ Pop GQ Pop GQ Pop
Institutionalized population:57,844 41.5%1,727 93.6%1,128 79.1%
Correctional facilities for adults:31,960 22.9%1,623 87.9%692 48.5%
Juvenile facilities:2,030 1.5%6 0.3%36 2.5%
Nursing facilities/Skilled-nursing facilities:22,156 15.9%98 5.3%393 27.6%
Other institutional facilities:1,698 1.2%7 0.5%
Noninstitutionalized population: 81,531 58.5%119 6.4%298 20.9%
College/University student housing:35,534 25.5%
Military quarters: 12,385 8.9%
Other noninstitutional facilities: 33,612 24.1%11 0.6%298 20.9%
Total Group Quarters Population:139,375 100.0%1,846 100.0%1,426 100.0%
Franklin
County
Benton
County
HOUSEHOLDS BY
TENURE
Occupied housing units therefore represent households and are further
distinguished by tenure – households that are owners and those that are
renters.
In the Tri-Cities Region, there are an estimated 93,575 occupied housing
units composed of 31.7% renter and 68.3% owner households according
to the 2016 American Community Survey (ACS) Census estimate.
Households and Housing Units by Tenure
Source: Amercian Community Survey (ACS) 2016 5-year estimates
Table DP-04 Selected Housing Characteristics
Tri-Cities Region Franklin County Benton County
Total Housing Units 98,648 26,386 72,262
Occupied Units 93,575 25,157 68,418
Owner Occupied 63,897 17,072 46,825
% Owner Households 68.3%67.9%68.4%
Renter Occupied 29,678 8,085 21,593
% Renter Households 31.7%32.1%31.6%
Page 33 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Housing Profile
Page 19
13.3%
89.3%
96.6%
25.7%
31.7%
86.7%
10.7%
3.4%
74.3%
68.3%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Single Family Residential
2 to 4 Unit
Multifamily (5 Unit+)
Mobile Home
All Housing Types
Occupied Housing -% Total by Housing Type
Renters - 2016, Tri-Cities Region Owners - 2016, Tri-Cities Region
Source: Amercian Community Survey (ACS) 1-year estimates
26.6%
19.8%
45.4%
8.0%
33.8%
21.7%
35.1%
9.2%
0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%
Single Family Residential
2 to 4 Unit
Multifamily (5 Unit+)
Mobile Home
Renter Occupied Housing -Units in Structure
% of Total Renter Households
Franklin County - 2016 Benton County - 2016
Source: Amercian Community Survey (ACS) 1-year estimates
RENTER HOUSING
TYPES
In Franklin County, 35.1% of the renter occupied housing stock consists of
multifamily structures followed by 33.8% in single family homes and in
21.7% two to four-unit structures.
In Benton County, 45.4% of the renter occupied housing stock consists of
multifamily structures followed by 26.6% in single family homes and in
19.8% two to four-unit structures.
Page 34 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Housing Profile
Page 20
Renter Occupied - 2016 Franklin County % Tot Benton County % Tot
Single Family Residential 2,735 33.8%5,733 26.6%
2 to 4 Unit 1,756 21.7%4,267 19.8%
Multifamily (5 Unit+)2,835 35.1%9,801 45.4%
Mobile Home 746 9.2%1,723 8.0%
Other (Boat, RV, van, etc.)13 0.2%69 0.3%
Total 8,085 100.0%21,593 100.0%
% Renter Households 32.1%31.6%
BEDROOMS BY
TENURE
Renter households are typically smaller than owner households. In
Franklin County, a combined 60.7% of renter households occupy units
with two or less bedrooms. In Benton County, this ratio is higher at 67.2%
- a reflection of the higher ratio of multifamily units.
4.0%
23.6%
39.6%
26.2%
5.6%
1.1%
7.3%
15.8%
37.6%
28.5%
8.8%
2.0%
0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%
Studio/SRO
1 bedroom
2 bedrooms
3 bedrooms
4 bedrooms
5 bedroom+
Renter Occupied Housing -No. of Bedrooms
Franklin County - 2016 Benton County - 2016
Source: Amercian Community Survey (ACS) 1-year estimates
AGE OF HOUSING
STOCK
One indicator of housing conditions is the age of the housing stock as
older buildings tend to have more condition problems. In Franklin County,
45.1% of owner occupied units and 30.2% of renter occupied units were
built since 2000. In Benton County, 49.4% of owner occupied units and
15.6% of renter occupied units were built since 2000.
Page 35 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Housing Profile
Page 21
3.4%
12.2%
10.9%
8.1%
29.5%
14.9%
9.2%
9.1%
2.8%
3.7%
26.4%
11.0%
8.9%
16.8%
8.6%
11.0%
3.8%
9.6%
0.0%5.0%10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%35.0%
Built 2010+
Built 2000 to 2009
Built 1990 to 1999
Built 1980 to 1989
Built 1970 to 1979
Built 1960 to 1969
Built 1950 to 1959
Built 1940 to 1949
Built 1939 or earlier
Age of Occupied Housing Stock (All Types) -Rental Units
Franklin County - 2016 Benton County - 2016
Source: Amercian Community Survey (ACS) 1-year estimates
CONDITION OF
HOUSING STOCK
Another factor influencing housing conditions is overcrowding.
Overcrowding in housing is when more people are living in a single
dwelling than there is space such that movement is restricted; privacy
secluded and can threaten public health. HUD defines overcrowding as
more than one person per room in a residence1.
Overcrowded Units - 2016 ACS Overcrowded Units - 2016 ACS
Franklin County Benton County
Occupied Overcrowded
Tenure Units Units
Owner 17,072 927 5.4%% of Owner
Renter 8,085 1,656 20.5%% of Renter
All 25,157 2,583 10.3%% of All HH
Source: Amercian Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates
1 Rooms counted [in the American Housing Survey (AHS)] include whole rooms used for living purposes,
such as bedrooms, living rooms, dining rooms, kitchens, recreation rooms, permanently enclosed porches
that are suitable for year-round use, lodger’s rooms, and other finished rooms. Also included are rooms used
for offices by a person living in the unit.
Page 36 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Housing Profile
Page 22
Overcrowded Units - 2016 ACS
Benton County
Occupied Overcrowded
Tenure Units Units
Owner 46,825 1,018 2.2%% of Owner
Renter 21,593 1,702 7.9%% of Renter
All 68,418 2,720 4.0%% of All HH
Source: Amercian Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates
An estimated 10.3% of all households in Franklin County (2,583
households) are overcrowded, a significantly higher ratio than Benton
County at 4.0% (2,720 households) that meet this definition.
In addition to overcrowded units, another measure of housing condition is
substandard units. Substandard units include those lacking complete
plumbing facilities2 and those lacking complete kitchens3. Assuming no
overlap, an estimated 1.1% (273 units) of all occupied units in Franklin
County and 0.8% (542 units) in Benton County are substandard.
Substandard Units - 2016 ACS
Franklin County
Occupied Lacking Complete Lacking Complete
Tenure Units Kitchens Plumbing Facilities Total
Owner 17,072 41 33 74 0.4%% of Owner
Renter 8,085 149 50 199 2.5%% of Renter
All 25,157 190 83 273 1.1%% of All HH
Source: Amercian Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates
Substandard Units - 2016 ACS
Benton County
Occupied Lacking Complete Lacking Complete
Tenure Units Kitchens Plumbing Facilities Total
Owner 46,825 51 35 86 0.2%% of Owner
Renter 21,593 440 16 456 2.1%% of Renter
All 68,418 491 51 542 0.8%% of All HH
Source: Amercian Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates
Poverty Status One indicator of housing need is the percentage of households in poverty,
as this population is most risk of becoming homeless. The Census
Bureau uses set income thresholds that vary by family size and
composition to determine who is in poverty. If the total income for a family
or unrelated individual falls below the relevant poverty threshold, then the
family (and every individual in it) or unrelated individual is considered in
poverty.
2 Complete plumbing facilities include: (1) hot and cold piped water; (2) a flush toilet; and (3) a bathtub or
shower. All three facilities must be located in the housing unit.
3 A unit has complete kitchen facilities when it has all of the following facilities: (a) cooking facilities (b)
refrigerator; and (c) a sink with piped water.
Page 37 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Housing Profile
Page 23
Less than 50% of Poverty Level Less than 100% of Poverty Level
% of population Margin of % of population Margin of
Geography Estimate Error Estimate Error
National 6.00%+/-0.1 13.40%+/-0.1
Washington State 5.10%+/-0.3 11.00%+/-0.3
Franklin County 6.40%+/-1.3 16.40%+/-1.6
Benton County 5.70%+/-0.8 13.90%+/-1.0
Source: Amercian Community Survey (ACS)
The weighted average 2017 poverty thresholds for one, two and three-
person households is as follows:
Weighted Avg 1-person HH $12,752
Weighted Avg 2-person HH $16,414
Weighted Avg 3-person HH $19,173
Weighted Avg 4-person HH $25,283
The current average household size in Franklin County is about 3.40
persons, which would indicate an average poverty level income of about
$21,500 for the typical household. Those households earning 50% below
the poverty line would then have annual gross household income less than
about $10,750. Using these metrics, there are approximately 1,600
households in Franklin County that are below 50% of the poverty line.
Franklin County Population Estimate (2017 ACS)85,438
% less than 50% of Poverty Level 6.40%
Estimated Population below 50% of Poverty Level 5,468
Average HH Size (2017 ACS)3.40
Households below 50% of Poverty Level 1,610
In Benton County, the average household size is about 2.71persons,
which would indicate an average poverty level income of about $18,500
for the typical household. Those households earning 50% below the
poverty line would then have annual gross household income less than
about $9,250. Using these metrics, there are approximately 3,900
households in Benton County that are below 50% of the poverty line.
Benton County Population Estimate (2017 ACS)185,684
% less than 50% of Poverty Level 5.70%
Estimated Population below 50% of Poverty Level 10,584
Average HH Size (2017 ACS)2.71
Households below 50% of Poverty Level 3,900
Combined, there are approximately 5,500 households in the Tri-Cities
region that earn below 50% of the poverty line – roughly $10,000 per year
on average.
Page 38 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Housing Profile
Page 24
These households in extreme poverty are much more likely to be
“precariously housed”. These are people on the edge of becoming literally
homeless and who may be doubled up with friends and relatives or paying
extremely high proportions of their income for shelter. This group is often
characterized as being at imminent risk of becoming homeless.
RENTAL STOCK BY
SUBISIDIZED AND
AFFORDABLE
UNITS
In the Tri-Cities Region, about 43% of the total rental stock is made up of
projects five units and larger with the balance single family to four-plexes.
Of multifamily units five units and larger, about 80% are conventional
market rate units with the balance (20%) affordable housing including tax
credit and other subsidized housing. In Franklin County, the ratio of
affordable housing is larger at 27%.
Existing Renter Housing Stock*
Franklin
County % Tot
Benton
County % Tot
Tri-Cities
Region % Tot
Single Family Residential 2,830 34%6,145 27%8,975 28%
Mobile Home/Other 785 9%1,921 8%2,706 9%
2 to 4 Unit 1,817 22%4,573 20%6,391 20%
Multifamily (5 Unit+)2,934 35%10,505 45%13,438 43%
Total 8,367 100%23,143 100%31,510 100%
Existing Multifamily Renter Stock**
Franklin
County % Tot
Benton
County % Tot
Tri-Cities
Region % Tot
Market Rate (Excl SFR/Mobile Home/Other)3,468 73%12,332 82%15,800 80%
Affordable - All Types 1,283 27%2,746 18%4,029 20%
Affordable - LIHTC 729 15%2,023 13%2,752 14%
Affordable - Other/Subsidized 554 12%723 5%1,277 6%
Total Multifamily 4,751 100%15,078 100%19,829 100%
Source: * 2016 Amercian Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates
**WSHFC, Internal Sources, Analysis by KM
Page 39 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Housing Profile
Page 25
Market Area Map (Benton & Franklin Counties) Page 40 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Housing Profile
Page 26
Multifamily Market Analysis
Introduction The following overview of the apartment market utilizes several data sources
including CoStar (a commercial real estate data provider), survey data
provided by the Runstad Center for Real Estate Research as well as our
own primary research including an in-house database maintained by Kidder
Mathews.
Regional
Overview
In general, commuting across the entire Tri-Cities is relatively quick and
residents may prefer one location over another but there is a definite feel of
Richland, Kennewick, and Pasco as being one competitive market.
The apartment market in the Tri-Cities market has seen a few periods of
strong building, generally following various build-ups at Hanford. The late
1970s saw the planning for decommissioning of the reactors, the mid-1980s
the closing of the reactors and beginning of clean-up efforts. In the early
2000s, a massive contract was given to Bechtel for the design and
construction of a vitrification plant for waste neutralization. Apartment
projects were brought to the market for this ramp-up, with over 3,100 new
units added to the market between 2002 and 2006. In 2011 a new
construction cycle started. Between 2011 and 2018 another 2,459 units
were added. This includes both market rate and income controlled projects.
Rent growth remains strong and area demographics point to continued
growth. Overall, about 32% of regional households rent. Despite fairly
affordable median home prices, differences in renting vs. owning have
become larger recently due to increases in mortgage rates.
According to Zillow, the regional median home sale price is about $266,500,
which would reflect a typical monthly mortgage payment of around $1,112
(assuming a 30-year mortgage with 20% down at a current 4.75% interest
rate). This mortgage payment compares with the average regional rent of
$984/month reported by CoStar and $834 reported by Runstad. This has
forced households into the rental market, either by choice or due to prices
jumping up and financing being more difficult to obtain with large down
payment requirements. This trend is expected to continue, if not accelerate
as interest rates increase, pricing more potential buyers out of the home
buying market. It is estimated that every 50-basis point increase disqualifies
about 6% of potential buying households.
Page 41 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Housing Profile
Page 27
APARTMENT MARKET OVERVIEW (MARKET RATE)- updated October 2018
Construction Activity*
Before 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Benton - County 7,719 303 408 176 317 106 144 291 176
% of Existing 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%3.9%5.1%2.1%3.7%1.2%1.6%3.2%1.9%
Franklin - County 1,306 176
% of Existing 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%13.5%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Benton/Franklin Combined 9,025 - - - - 303 408 352 317 106 144 291 176
% of Existing 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%3.4%4.4%3.6%3.1%1.0%1.4%2.7%1.6%
*Deliveries net of conversions and demolitions (market rate only)
2.0%
Inventory / Vacancy History
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Benton - County 7,719 7,719 7,719 7,719 7,719 8,022 8,430 8,606 8,923 9,029 9,173 9,464 9,640
7.0%5.3%5.6%5.6%5.1%6.7%7.7%7.8%5.2%4.3%4.6%4.2%4.4%
Franklin - County 1,306 1,306 1,306 1,306 1,306 1,306 1,306 1,482 1,482 1,482 1,482 1,482 1,482
6.1%6.4%7.0%7.6%7.0%7.3%7.4%6.1%8.5%4.6%4.0%5.6%5.5%
Benton/Franklin Combined 9,025 9,025 9,025 9,025 9,025 9,328 9,736 10,088 10,405 10,511 10,655 10,946 11,122
6.8%5.5%5.8%5.9%5.4%6.8%7.7%7.6%5.7%4.3%4.5%4.4%4.6%
Absorption History
2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2010 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Benton - County 131 (23) - 39 159 296 154 524 182 110 315 149
Franklin - County (4) (8) (8) 8 (4) (1) 182 (36) 58 9 (24) 1
Benton/Franklin Combined 117 (27) (9) 45 156 293 335 491 247 116 289 146
Source: CoStar, County records, adjusted by known projects not included in CoStar
RESTRICTED APARTMENT MARKET
Construction Activity*
Before 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Benton - County 2,426 230 30 32 28
% of Existing 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%9.5%0.0%1.1%0.0%1.2%1.0%0.0%
Franklin - County 1,197 44 42
% of Existing 3.7%0.0%0.0%0.0%3.4%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Benton/Franklin Combined 3,623 44 - - - 42 230 - 30 - 32 28 -
% of Existing 1.2%0.0%0.0%0.0%1.1%6.2%0.0%0.8%0.0%0.8%0.7%0.0%
*Deliveries net of conversions and demolitions (restricted rent only)
Source: CoStar
Inventory (Net of Conversions)
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Benton - County 2,426 2,426 2,426 2,426 2,426 2,426 2,656 2,656 2,686 2,686 2,718 2,746 2,746
Franklin - County 1,197 1,241 1,241 1,241 1,241 1,283 1,283 1,283 1,283 1,283 1,283 1,283 1,283
Benton/Franklin Combined 3,623 3,667 3,667 3,667 3,667 3,709 3,939 3,939 3,969 3,969 4,001 4,029 4,029
*Source: Kidder Mathews, CoStar, County/State records adjusted by known timelines and projects not included in CoStar Page 42 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Housing Profile
Page 28
Completed since 2000/ Under Construction/ Proposed
Status: A = Existing, UC = under construction; X = planned
County Status Units Stories Style Type Property name Age/Target Address City Developer or Owner
Benton A 70 2 Garden Market Aaron Ridge 2003 900 Aaron Drive Richland Kenneth V Noreen
Benton A 212 3 Garden Market La Serena at Hansen Park 2003 7701 W 4th Avenue Kennewick The Wolff Company
Benton A 216 3 Garden Market Shoreline Village 2003 2555 Duportail Street Richland Yuksel Inc
Benton A 120 3 Low-Rise Market - Senior Solstice at Kennewick 2003 8264 W Grandridge Blvd Kennewick NorthStar Healthcare Income, Inc.
Benton A 134 3 Garden Market Center Pointe 2004 460 N Arthur Street Kennewick Affinity Property Management
Benton A 286 2 & 3 Garden Market Villas at Meadow Springs 2004 250 Gage Boulevard Richland Peak Capital Partners
Benton A 331 3 Garden Market Bella Vista 2005 2100 Bellerive Drive Richland Tokola Properties
Benton A 252 3 Garden Market Broadmoor 2005 10305 Chapel Hill Blvd Pasco Robert Young & Associates, Inc.
Benton A 160 3 Garden Market Grandridge Place 2005 725 N Center Parkway Kennewick The Wolff Company
Franklin A 25 3 Townhouses Market Island Estates 2005 7716 Quadra Drive Pasco
Franklin A 46 1 Garden Market Vineyard Apartments 2005 2407 W Jay St Pasco Pacific West Communities, Inc.
Franklin A 25 3 Townhouses Market 7716 Quadra Dr 2005 7716 Quadra Dr Pasco Stephen W. Reed
Franklin A 300 3 Garden Market Crossing at Chapel Hill 2006 6626 Chapel Hill Blvd Pasco Bach Corporation
Benton A 35 1-2 Low-Rise Market Parkview Village at Hansen Park 2006 500 S Delaware Street Kennewick Steve Conner
Benton A 168 2 Garden Market Seasons on 4th Avenue 2006 8180 W 4th Avenue Kennewick The Management Group, Inc.
Benton A 30 3 Low-Rise Market Canyon Crest 2011 785 Canyon Street Richland Celski & Associates Inc
Benton A 144 3 Garden Market Island View 2011 1529 Columbia Park Trail Richland Inland Group
Benton A 118 3 Garden Market Quail Springs 2011 4711 N Dallas Road West Richland Meter Properties
Benton A 11 2 Low-Rise Market Symons Square 2011 703 Symons St Richland Bill Siefken
Benton A 180 3 Garden Market Mosaic on the River 2012 2513 Duportail Street Richland Stephen Mackay
Benton A 228 3 Garden Market Regency Park Phase I & II 2012 3003 Queensgate Drive Richland Evergreen Housing Development Group
Benton A 176 3 Garden Market Badger Mountain Ranch 2013 451 Westcliff Blvd Richland Starboard Realty Advisors, LLC
Franklin A 176 2 Garden Market Navigator Villas 2013 6212 Road 68 Pasco Security Properties, Inc.
Benton A 120 4 Midrise Market Portion Affinity at Southridge 2014 5207 W Hildebrand Blvd Kennewick Inland Group
Benton A 24 2 Garden Market Gramercy 2014 2112 S Rainier Kennewick
Benton A 160 3 Garden Market Lofts at Innovation Center 2014 2895 Pauling Avenue Richland Shotgun Creek Investments
Benton A 13 2 Garden Market 3426 W 7th Ave 2014 3426 W 7th Ave Kennewick Aissata Sidibe
Benton A 106 3 Garden Market Bellavista East 2015 2100 Bellerive Dr Richland Tokola Properties
Benton A 144 3 Garden Market Badger Canyon 2016 10251 Ridgeline Drive Kennewick Edward Rose & Sons
Benton A 95 3 Garden Ma 575 Columbia 2017 575 Columbia Point Drive Richland
Benton A 36 3 Garden Market Badger Canyon - Ongoing Phases 2017 10251 Ridgeline Drive Kennewick Edward Rose & Sons
Benton A 160 3 Garden Market Commons at Innovation Center 2017 2894 Salk Avenue Richland Shotgun Creek Investments
Benton A 96 3 Garden Market Badger Canyon - Ongoing Phases 2018 10251 Ridgeline Drive Kennewick Edward Rose & Sons
Benton UC 80 3 Garden Market - Student The Brelsford Vineyards 2018 215 University Dr Richland Ustur
Benton X 106 3 Low-Rise Market Park Place Apartments 2019 650 George Washington Way Richland City of Richland
Benton X 366 3 Garden Market Badger Canyon - Future Phases TBD 10251 Ridgeline Drive Kennewick Edward Rose & Sons
Total (Market Rate)4,949
Source: Kidder Mathews, CoStar, County/State records adjusted by known timelines and projects not included in CoStar
County Status Units Zip Style Type Property name Age/Target Address City Target
Benton A 59 99352 HUD Tri-Cities Terrace I Housing Project 2002 1770 Leslie Road Richland Senior
Benton A 39 99352 HUD Tri-Cities Terrace II 2002 1790 Leslie Road Richland Senior
Benton A 148 99336 Garden LIHTC Vintage at Richland 2004 1950 Bellerive Dr Richland Senior, Disabled
Franklin A 240 99301 Garden LIHTC Silver Creek Apartments 2005 9315 Chapel Hill Blvd Pasco Large HH
Franklin A 198 99301 Garden LIHTC Stonegate 2005 6102 Road 68 Pasco Disabled, Large HH
Franklin A 45 99301 Garden LIHTC Vineyards 2005 2407 W. Jay Street Pasco Farm Worker, Large HH
Franklin A 19 99326 LIHTC Wheatlands 2005 661 S. Burke Connell Senior
Franklin A 44 99301 Garden LIHTC Tepeyac Haven 2007 801 N 22nd Ave Pasco Farm Worker, Large HH
Franklin A 42 99301 Garden LIHTC Bishop Topel Haven 2011 1534 E Spokane St Pasco Farm Worker
Benton A 230 99338 Garden LIHTC Copper Ridge Apartments 2012 5501 W Hildebrand Blvd.Kennewick Disabled, Large HH
Benton A 30 99338 Midrise 80/20 - Rest. Ptn.Affinity at Southridge 2014 5207 Bob Olson Pkwy Kennewick Senior, Disabled
Benton A 32 99336 Garden LIHTC Nueva Vista 2016 360 N. Union Street Kennewick Disabled, Homeless
Benton A 28 99336 Garden LIHTC Nueva Vista II 2017 360 N. Union Street Kennewick Disabled, Homeless
Total (Restricted)1,154
Source: Kidder Mathews, CoStar, County/State records adjusted by known timelines and projects not included in CoStar
Page 43 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Housing Profile
Page 29
Regional Inventory As shown on the previous table, there are about 11,100 market rate units
regionally (5 units and larger). Since 2007 the regional market rate
inventory has increased by nearly 2,100 (36%). There are only a couple of
projects planned with a total of 472-units.
Alternatively, the affordable (income controlled) market represents about
4,000 units regionally or about 26% of the market rate supply (5 units and
larger). Since 2007 the regional affordable inventory has increased by
about 400 units, or 11% over the past decade.
Regional &
Submarket
Vacancy Trends
CoStar reports a regional vacancy at 4.5% (4.4% in Benton County and
5.5% in Franklin County). CoStar primarily draws their vacancy figures
from Apartments.com, which is a commercial product they own and
operate. The vacancy reported is primarily an availability rate that includes
new construction in lease-up as well as units coming available weeks or
months in the future. This skews the rate upward (sometimes significantly
if there are large number of deliveries in lease-up) compared to the actual
physical occupancy in properties that are stabilized. In markets with little
inventory, CoStar estimates vacancy, market and effective rents based an
algorithm. For these reasons, it is not a true measure of physical vacancy
and is viewed with caution.
Market Vacancy (All Ages) YTD 2018
Floorplan
Benton
County
Franklin
County Tri-Cities
Studios 6.9%4.2%6.1%
1-Bed 4.1%5.2%4.2%
2-Bed 4.4%5.8%4.6%
3-Bed 4.9%6.0%5.0%
Total Average (All Ages)4.4%5.5%4.6%
Inventory 9,640 1,482 11,122
86.7%13.3%100.0%
Source: CoStar (October 2018)
Page 44 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Housing Profile
Page 30
Average Asking Market Rent (All Ages) YTD 2018
Floorplan
Benton
County
Franklin
County Tri-Cities
Studios $1,016 $625 $892
1-Bed $914 $847 $906
2-Bed $1,008 $1,076 $1,018
3-Bed $1,194 $1,238 $1,199
Total Average (All Ages)$997 $976 $994
Overall Average Asking/SF $1.11 $1.06 $1.09
Concession % of Annual Rent 1.3%0.7%1.2%
Concession - Weeks Free 0.6 0.3 0.6
Source: CoStar (October 2018)
CoStar’s measure of concessions is realistic, as their data is largely based
on properties that are marketing on Apartments.com. According to this
source, concessions are nearly nonexistent, currently a nominal 1.2% of
the annual rent -- equivalent to about four days or less free rent on
average.
For comparison, the Runstad average in Spring 2018 reported a regional
vacancy of 1.1% as shown in the following table. It should be noted that
the Runstad data excludes properties in lease-up and reflects projects 10
units and larger built since 1963. In addition, the surveyed sample for the
Spring survey reflected a participation rate of only 9% of units, compared
to prior surveys in the 50% to 70% range.
Spring 2018 Survey - Units surveyed Submarket
Subregion
Buildings
Surveyed
Units
Surveyed
Average
Unit SF
Average
Rent Rent/SF
Market
Vacancy
Tri-Cities na 1,263 833 $834 $1.00 1.1%
1-Bedroom na 398 664 $686 $1.03 1.8%
2-Bedroom na 439 866 $808 $0.93 0.5%
Source: Runstad Center for RE Research
Page 45 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Housing Profile
Page 31
$521$563$594$602$598$557$574$586$623$673$743$762$735$749$759$753$787$851$8344.8%
3.4%
3.3%
4.7%
7.2%
9.4%
10.0%
7.4%
3.6%
2.4%
1.3%
3.5%
4.8%
4.7%3.4%
2.0%
2.3%
2.8%
1.1%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
$400
$450
$500
$550
$600
$650
$700
$750
$800
$850
$900
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Runstad Regional Rent and Vacancy Trends (All Ages, Annual Basis)
Tri-Cities Rent Tri-Cities % Vacant
Source: The Real Estate Report, Spring 2018
Page 46 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Housing Profile
Page 32
As shown on the previous chart, the average market vacancy rate is
estimated at 1.1% for Spring 2018, which is well below the 4.3% annual
average since 2000. Historically, vacancy last peaked at 4.8% following
the loss of stimulus spending in 2011 before dropping back down to the
low levels currently existing in this market. Generally, the greater market
reflects relatively low vacancy rates for all unit types.
Regionally, the average rental rates have increased from $0.65/sq ft in
2000 to $1.00/sq ft as of the Spring 2018 survey reflecting a moderate
growth of 54% over this period equivalent to an average annual growth of
3.0% per year.
Conclusion The majority of the apartment units in the Tri-Cities were built either during
the 1970s, between 2003 and 2006, and with a renewed surge in more
recent years, between 2011 and 2018. Based on recent trends and the
expectation of managers in the area, the market will remain strong with
increasing rents and a stable vacancy level. Use of concessions is still
expected, but only in limited or unit specific use, most likely in during new
construction lease-up.
Page 47 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Housing Profile
Page 33
Affordable Housing Overview
Overview HUD defines housing as affordable if a household pays 30% or less of their
gross income toward housing costs. There are several affordable housing
programs, each with different definitions of affordability and income limits
used to determine eligibility. Generally, most affordable housing programs
provide housing that is affordable to households earning 80% or less of the
area median income (AMI). The following table describes some of the basic
categories and terminology.
Income Restriction
Min Max Typical Program
Extremely Low Income NA 30% Public Housing, Subsidized
Very Low Income 30% 50% Most Tax Credit
Low Income 50% 80% Tax Credit, Workforce
Moderate Income 80% 100%+ Workforce
Collectively, various funders address housing need across the entire
income spectrum as illustrated in the following.
The type of affordable housing program drives the income level targeted.
Different funders focus their resources on different segments of need.
Generally speaking, HUD provides rental assistance through three key
programs.
Public housing. Public Housing is generally owned and operated by the
local or regional housing authority, where capital costs and some of the
operating costs are fully subsidized. The rent charged is based on the
same formula used for HUD Section 8 assistance. Typically, this type of
housing is targeted towards “very-low” and “extremely-low” income
households and most participants have incomes less than 30% AMI.
Page 48 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Housing Profile
Page 34
Project-based assisted housing. Provides assistance to households
living in privately owned rental housing. The assistance is attached to the
units, which are reserved for low-income families who are required to pay
30 percent of their incomes for rent. In general, the tenant’s income
cannot exceed 50% of the area’s median income (AMI) adjusted for family
size, with exceptions up to 80% AMI. In practice, most participants have
incomes less than 30% AMI.
Tenant-based rental assistance. The Section 8 voucher program
supplements the rent payments of more than 2.0 million families in the
private rental market. The program is administered through state and local
housing agencies. Although 30 percent of income is the rent baseline,
families often pay more and use these portable subsidies to locate housing
of their choice. In general, the tenant’s income cannot exceed 50% of the
area’s median income (AMI) adjusted for family size, with exceptions up to
80% AMI. In practice, most participants have incomes less than 30% AMI.
These rental assistance programs can be thought of as “deep” subsidy
programs. Other federal housing programs also produce affordable
housing, typically with shallower subsidies. Although these units are often
more affordable than market-rate units, without additional rent subsidies
(such as vouchers), extremely low-income families (those earning less than
30% AMI) often have to pay much more than 30 percent of their incomes
under these programs. Primary examples of these shallower subsidy
programs include:
Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program. The LIHTC program
was established in 1986 by Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code.
Under this program, tax credits are allocated to a project based on the
number of qualified low-income units and the costs of development. These
tax credits run ten years and offset income tax liability of the investing
limited partners. These credits are typically sold (in the form of a limited
partnership interest) to private investors for a dollar-for-dollar credit against
federal income tax. In return, the property owners agree to indirectly
subsidize rents for low-income tenants by restricting rents to maximums
(based on area median incomes) that are approved annually by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
In order to qualify for the LIHTC program, several conditions must be met.
First, the project owner must allocate at least 20% of the units to
households within incomes at or below 50% of AMI or must allocate 40% of
the units to households at or below 60% of AMI. In addition to the tenant
income qualifications, the rent charged is based on 30% of the income limit
Page 49 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Housing Profile
Page 35
for the household occupying each unit. Additionally, for utilities not
provided, the rent limit must be adjusted downward by a utility allowance
established by HUD or the Local Housing Authority for each unit type.
The tax credits are allocated over the first 10-year period; however, the
low-income restrictions typically run for a period of 40 years; an initial 15-
year compliance period required by the IRS plus an additional 15-year or
longer period referred to as the “extended low-income use period.” During
the compliance period, failure to adhere to the program specifications or
reduction in the number of low income units on which the credit is based
will result in recapture penalties.
The LIHTC program has been the primary program used to develop the
majority of affordable housing projects in the United States over the past
20 years.
HOME Investment Partnerships Program:
Provides annual formula grants to state and local governments that can be
used to assist homeowners, first-time homebuyers, or renters. Qualifying
rents must be affordable to households with incomes not exceeding 65
percent of AMI or must be less than the local Fair Market Rent (FMR),
whichever is less.
USDA Section 515 Rural Rental Housing:
Formerly known as the Farmers Home Administration Section 515 Rural
Rental Housing Program, Rural Development (RD) is regulated by the
USDA. It is a federal program that provides low interest loans to finance
housing that serves low-income persons in rural areas who pay 30% of
their adjusted income on rent or the basic rent, whichever is higher – but
not exceeding market rent. “Basic rent” is the rent needed to pay operating
and maintenance expenses plus the mortgage payment and is calculated
annually by USDA RD. In many RD projects, the property may also
include project-based rental assistance for units. While the income
restrictions are capped at 80% of AMI, in practice, most participants have
incomes significantly below that, especially those receiving rental
assistance.
Older rental subsidy programs:
Programs named for sections of the National Housing Act, primarily the
Section 221(d)(3) Below Market Interest Rate Program and the Section
236 mortgage assistance program, were active from the early 1960s
through the early 1970s. They were designed to produce housing affordable
for families with incomes greater than the public housing income limits.
Page 50 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Housing Profile
Page 36
HOUSEHOLD
INCOME
RESTRICTIONS
To qualify as a resident under the Federal Low-Income Housing Tax
Credit (LIHTC) Program, units are restricted to rents based on area
median income. The LIHTC rents are determined both by income and by
unit size. The following chart lists the maximum income levels that apply
in Benton/Franklin Counties. The 2018 median income for a family of four
is $72,800.
INCOME LIMITS (2018 MTSP Limits)
Benton/Franklin Counties
2018 Median Income: $72,800
30% of Median 40% of Median 50% of Median 60% of Median 80% of Median
Household Size Income Income Income Income Income
1 person $15,240 $20,320 $25,400 $30,480 $40,640
2 person $17,400 $23,200 $29,000 $34,800 $46,400
3 person $19,590 $26,120 $32,650 $39,180 $52,240
4 person $21,750 $29,000 $36,250 $43,500 $58,000
5 person $23,490 $31,320 $39,150 $46,980 $62,640
6 person $25,230 $33,640 $42,050 $50,460 $67,280
7 person $26,970 $35,960 $44,950 $53,940 $71,920
8 person $28,710 $38,280 $47,850 $57,420 $76,560
Source: WSHFC
In order to comply with the LIHTC program, units cannot be leased to
households whose incomes exceed the levels shown in the table.
Tenants must qualify at or below the respective median income levels
based on household size.
Maximum allowable rents are then adjusted for tenant paid utilities. The
utility allowance is usually determined by the local housing authority based
on the size and type of heat and utilities paid by tenant. Assuming all
basic utilities are included in the base rent results in the following table of
maximum allowable gross program rents. Also shown are the average
asking market rents (all ages) according to CoStar presented earlier and
used here as a proxy for market rent. These proxy market rents are
conservative for comparison to the tax credit program rents because these
market rents exclude upward adjustment for tenant utilities (i.e. tenant paid
electricity as well as water, sewer and garbage if passed on to residents)
compared to the subject’s gross program rents that assume all utilities are
included in the base rent.
Page 51 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Housing Profile
Page 37
Rental Rate Determination - 30% of Median
Rent Gap LIHTC
People 30% of Median Max. Allowable Average CoStar Advantage/% Above/
Unit Type per Unit Income Gross Rent/Month Asking Rent/Month (Disadvantage)(Below Market)
Studio 1.0 $15,240 $381 $892 $511 -57%
1 Bedroom 1.5 $16,320 $408 $906 $498 -55%
2 Bedroom 3.0 $19,590 $489 $1,018 $529 -52%
3 Bedroom 4.5 $22,620 $565 $1,199 $634 -53%
Rental Rate Determination - 40% of Median
Rent Gap LIHTC
People 40% of Median Max. Allowable Current HUD FMR Advantage/% Above/
Unit Type per Unit Income Gross Rent/Month Gross Rent/Month (Disadvantage)(Below Market)
Studio 1.0 $20,320 $508 $892 $384 -43%
1 Bedroom 1.5 $21,760 $544 $906 $362 -40%
2 Bedroom 3.0 $26,120 $653 $1,018 $365 -36%
3 Bedroom 4.5 $30,160 $754 $1,199 $445 -37%
Rental Rate Determination - 50% of Median
Rent Gap LIHTC
People 50% of Median Max. Allowable Current HUD FMR Advantage/% Above/
Unit Type per Unit Income Gross Rent/Month Gross Rent/Month (Disadvantage)(Below Market)
Studio 1.0 $25,400 $635 $892 $257 -29%
1 Bedroom 1.5 $27,200 $680 $906 $226 -25%
2 Bedroom 3.0 $32,650 $816 $1,018 $202 -20%
3 Bedroom 4.5 $37,700 $942 $1,199 $257 -21%
Rental Rate Determination - 60% of Median
Rent Gap LIHTC
People 60% of Median Max. Allowable Current HUD FMR Advantage/% Above/
Unit Type per Unit Income Gross Rent/Month Gross Rent/Month (Disadvantage)(Below Market)
Studio 1.0 $30,480 $762 $892 $130 -15%
1 Bedroom 1.5 $32,640 $816 $906 $90 -10%
2 Bedroom 3.0 $39,180 $979 $1,018 $39 -4%
3 Bedroom 4.5 $45,240 $1,131 $1,199 $68 -6%
In general, restricted rents should be less than market rents to ensure
sufficient incentive for a tenant to undergo the income evaluation process,
to compensate for any lack of amenities, and to offset any negative stigma
there may be to residing in an affordable housing project. If a tenant were
able to rent a market-rate unit at another project, with perhaps superior
amenities to an “affordable income” property, the tenant would likely do so
unless the rent is sufficiently below market to provide an incentive.
However, evidence of stigma is becoming less evident especially in
secondary and tertiary markets. Tax credit properties are often the nicest,
best-kept and newest rental properties available.
Page 52 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Housing Profile
Page 38
Kidder Mathews, WSHFC, USDA and HUD Sect-8 Databases (effective 10/18/2018)
RESTRICTED RENT COMPETITIVE SUPPLY
Affordability Program Special Set Asides LIHTC Breakout by Income Restriction
Name City Zip
No. of
Units
Restd.
Units
LIHTC
Units
Year
Built Studio 1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR+Target PHA LIHTC
USDA-
RD
USDA Sub-
sidized
HUD
Sec-8/
Other
# of Sub-
sidized Elderly
Farm
Worker Dis-abled
Large
HH
Home-
less
30%
AMI
35%
AMI
40%
AMI
45%
AMI
50%
AMI
60%
AMI
Mgr or
Emp Mkt
Benton City Homes Benton City 99320 10 10 10 Family x 10 of 10 10 10
Cherryhill Villas - New Benton City 99320 28 27 12 13 3 Family x 24 of 25 24 27
Desert Rose Terrace Benton City 99320 26 25 25 14 12 Senior Disabled x 25 5 10 8 7 1
Pioneer Park Connell 99326 51 50 50 1996 8 12 6 Disabled, Large HH x 10 10 26 24 1
Wheatlands Connell 99326 20 19 19 2005 16 4 Senior x x 19 of 20 19 19 19 1
Affinity at Southridge Kennewick 99338 150 30 30 2014 12 78 60 Senior, Disabled x 150 30 30 120
Brentwood Kennewick 99336 105 98 1977 71 34 Family x 98 98
Chenoweth House Kennewick 99336 36 8 29 7 Senior 36 2 6
Copper Ridge Apartments Kennewick 99338 232 230 230 2012 44 126 60 Disabled, Large HH x 47 47 230 2
Desert Villa & Desert Villa East Kennewick 99336 155 151 151 1978 147 8 Senior x x 151 154 151 1 3
Edison Terrace South Kennewick 99336 15 15 15 Disabled x 15 14 15
Edison Terrace West Kennewick 99336 45 44 44 1 Senior x 44 45 44
Hawaiian Village Kennewick 99336 96 76 12 84 Family x 76 76
Heatherstone Kennewick 99336 225 223 223 1996 72 104 48 Large HH x 34 223 2
Kamiakin Apartments Kennewick 99336 236 233 233 1975 212 24 x 70 163 3
Keewaydin Plaza Kennewick 99336 66 66 66 Disabled x x 66 66
Kennewick Garden Court Kennewick 99336 27 22 1981 27 Senior x 22 22
Kent Manor Kennewick 99336 51 50 50 1997 18 20 13 Disabled, Large HH x 10 10 50 1
Meadow Park Apartments Kennewick 99336 155 152 152 1976 124 31 Disabled, Large HH, Homeless x 31 31 16 61 46 45 3
Mitchell Manor Kennewick 99336 6 6 6 Disabled x x 6 6 6
Nueva Vista Kennewick 99336 32 32 32 2016 12 18 2 Disabled, Homeless x x x 16 7 16 16 8 8
Nueva Vista II Kennewick 99336 28 28 28 2017 10 16 2 Disabled, Homeless X 6 14 28
Parkview Apartments Kennewick 99336 109 107 107 1996 12 26 40 29 Disabled, Large HH x 22 22 107 2
Quail Ridge Apartments Kennewick 99336 51 50 50 1994 21 20 10 Disabled, Large HH x 10 10 50 1
Sandstone Apartments Kennewick 99336 121 119 119 1995 40 55 24 Disabled, Large HH x 27 24 119 2
Sunnyslope Homes Kennewick 99336 124 124 29 52 37 6 Disabled x x 124 6 124
Ringold Seasonal Farmworker HousingMesa 99343 96 96 Farmworker - 96 beds 96
AMP1 Pasco 99301 68 68 10 22 36 Public Housing x x 68 68
AMP2 Pasco 99301 120 120 22 89 9 Public Housing x x 120 120
AMP3 Pasco 99301 92 92 45 11 22 14 Public Housing x x 92 92
Bishop Topel Haven Pasco 99301 43 42 42 2011 19 20 4 Farm Worker x 32 42 1
Highland Park Pasco 99301 24 24 6 12 6 x x 24 24
Laposada Pasco 99301 66 65 41 25 Farm Worker, Family x 65 of 66 65 65
Pinecrest Apartments Pasco 99301 54 53 53 1971 10 41 3 Disabled x x 53 11 53 1
Scattered Sites Pasco 99301 44 44 x x 44 44
Silver Creek Apartments Pasco 99301 242 240 240 2005 48 75 66 53 Large HH x 48 72 168 2
Stonegate Pasco 99301 200 198 198 2005 32 123 45 Disabled, Large HH x 40 40 198 2
Tepeyac Haven Pasco 99301 45 44 44 2007 21 19 4 Farm Worker, Large HH x 44 9 44 1
TRI CITIES VISTA LOW COST HOUSINGPasco 99301 52 45 8 30 14 Family x 45 45
Varney Court Pasco 99301 38 38 38 24 24 2 Farm Worker, Large HH x x x 38 29 8 19 19
Vineyards, The Pasco 99301 46 45 45 2005 22 24 Farm Worker, Large HH x 45 9 18 23 4 1
Prosser Gardens Prosser 99350 40 30 1978 12 22 6 Family x 30 30
Prosser Manor Prosser 99350 24 24 1986 24 Senior x 21 of 24 21 24 24
Rio de Vida Prosser 99350 51 50 50 17 34 Family x x 16 of 16 16 10 10 25 25 1
Saint Anthony Prosser 99350 61 60 60 26 35 Senior, Disabled x 60 12 30 30 1
Columbia Park Richland 99352 140 56 56 1952 14 47 58 19 Disabled x x x 56 14 56 3 82
Cullum House Richland 99352 9 8 8
LUTHER SENIOR CENTER I Richland 99354 50 34 47 3 Senior x 34 50 34
LUTHER SR CENTER ADDITION #1Richland 99354 24 19 24 Senior x 19 24 19
McMurray Park Richland 99352 100 98 98 1997 16 62 22 Large HH x 22 26 72 2
Orchard Hills Apartments Richland 99352 142 141 141 1994 32 56 40 14 Large HH x 15 36 105 1
Three Rivers Village Richland 99354 41 40 40 1983 41 Senior, Disabled x x 40 40 8 16 12 12 1
Tri-Cities Terrace I Housing Project Richland 99352 60 59 2002 59 1 Senior x 59 60 59
Tri-Cities Terrace II Richland 99352 40 39 2002 39 1 Senior x 39 40 39
Tri-Cities Terrace South Richland 99352 15 14 14 1 Disabled x 14 14 14
Vintage at Richland Richland 99336 150 148 148 2004 45 105 Senior, Disabled x 150 30 45 103 2
Total LIH Units 4,377 4,029 2,752 Total 1,548 877 160 360 349 46 1,251 38 160 103 878 1,599 39 205
Total Project Count % of Total 38%22%4%9%9%1%31%1%4%3%22%40%1%5%Page 53 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Housing Profile
Page 39
AFFORDABLE
SUPPLY
The table on the previous page lists existing affordable housing inventory
in Benton & Franklin Counties. This list combines several datasets
including the Washington State Housing Finance Commission, State
Department of Commerce, public housing authorities and federal datasets
created by HUD and USDA. Combined, this dataset represents the
majority of public and privately assisted affordable rental housing.
Affordable Supply by Income Distribution & Program
Target Benton/Franklin % of Total % of Total % of Total
Type Income Level Combinded Benton County Franklin County Combinded Benton County Franklin County
LIHTC Only 30% AMI 173 155 18 4.3%5.6%1.4%
LIHTC Only 35% AMI 36 36 0 0.9%1.3%0.0%
LIHTC Only 40% AMI 140 54 86 3.5%2.0%6.7%
LIHTC Only 45% AMI 50 50 0 1.2%1.8%0.0%
LIHTC Only 50% AMI 572 451 121 14.2%16.4%9.4%
LIHTC Only 60% AMI 1,342 948 394 33.3%34.5%30.7%
Workforce 80% AMI 0 0 0 0.0%0.0%0.0%
USDA, HUD, Other 30% AMI*1,716 1,052 664 42.6%38.3%51.8%
Total Total 4,029 2,746 1,283 100.0%100.0%100.0%
*Most residents have incomes less than 30% AMI
As shown on the previous restricted supply chart, there are 56 affordable
housing projects operating under the various affordable housing programs
with a total of 4,377 restricted units. Of these, more than 57% operate
solely under the LIHTC program with the remaining 43% under some
combination of USDA, HUD, LIHTC or other programs – most with rental
assistance (subsidies) where the majority of residents earn less than 30%
of the area median income. Three of the projects have a total of 46-units
specifically set-aside for the formerly homeless. These include Meadow
Park Apartments, Nueva Vista I and II, which operate under the tax credit
program. None are permanent supportive housing targeting the
chronically homeless.
Homeless Housing
Inventory
Homeless assistance programs have generally been grouped according to
the residential component, rather than the nonresidential supportive
services offered.4 The basic broad categories are “emergency shelter”,
“transitional housing” and “permanent supportive housing”.
HUD defines emergency shelters as a facility with the primary purpose of
providing temporary shelter for homeless people. These are typically
open 24 hours a day; provide shelter in congregate settings with
communal sleeping and eating space. Shelters can vary widely in the
amount and type of services offered.
4 Gubits, Daniel, et al. (2015). “Family Options Study, Short-Term Impacts of Housing and Services for
Homeless Families,” U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Page 54 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Housing Profile
Page 40
Transitional housing offers homeless persons a place to stay or a rent
subsidy with supportive services for a longer period, typically 6 to 24
months. Often persons are referred to transitional housing from
emergency shelters. Transitional housing can include project based
transitional housing, scattered site and temporary rent assistance. As with
emergency shelters, services offered vary across programs and may be
more intensive than those offered at shelters including case management
and supportive services. The goal of most transitional housing is to place
residents in stable housing at program completion.
A subcategory is “Safe Havens”, which HUD defines as projects that
provide private or semi-private long-term housing for people with severe
mental illness and are limited to serving no more than 25 people within a
facility.
Permanent supportive housing (PSH) is designed to provide housing
(either project based or tenant based) and supportive services on a long
term basis to formerly homeless people. McKinney-Vento-funded
programs typically require that the client have a disability for program
eligibility, so the majority of people in PSH have disabilities. Under the
Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, there are projects (or
units within projects) that have been developed specifically for homeless
households as permanent supportive housing.
Another subcategory and recent innovation is Rapid Re-Housing, which is
a housing model designed to provide temporary housing assistance to
people experiencing homelessness, moving them quickly out of
homelessness and into permanent housing. Rapid Re-Housing is
included under the umbrella of Permanent Supportive Housing and are
excluded from the HUD PIT (Point in Time) counts.
Each county in Washington State reports all expenditures by funding
sources for each homeless housing project in their community. The
following is a summary of homeless beds as reported by the Department
of Commerce in their Annual County Expenditure Report (The Golden
Report).
Page 55 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Housing Profile
Page 41
Homeless Beds by Project Type
Chronic Dedicated Non-Homeless Non-Homeless
Beds for Beds for Beds for Beds for Homeless Homeless Beds for Beds for
Intervention HH w/Minors HH w/out Minors Veterans Youth Setaside Beds HH w/Minors HH w/out Minors
Emergency Shelter 42 121 0 16 0 210 0 0
Transitional Housing 37 22 10 0 0 69 0 0
Subtotal 79 143 10 16 0 279 0 0
Permanent Housing 0 0 0 0 0 45 12 274
Permanent Supportive Housing 22 39 0 0 109 177 0 0
Subtotal 22 39 0 0 109 222 12 274
Grand Total 101 182 10 16 109 501 12 274
Source: The Golden Report (effective 2/21/2018) - Department of Commerce
According to this source, there are 501 dedicated homeless beds in the
region including 222 permanent housing supportive housing beds.
Precariously
Housed
1,930 1,750 1,475 2,085 2,205 2,125 2,345 2,505 2,495
5,595
7,865
10,390
7,815
4,745 4,640 3,935
3,135 2,515 2,345
3,040 1,770 1,750 2,055 1,610 1,270
2,560
2,725
2,685
1,070
515 375 255
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
Income Distribution by Tenure -All Households
Benton/Franklin Counties
Owners Renters
The Economic and Market Analysis Division of HUD compiles special
tabulations using US Census American Community Survey (ACS) survey
data, which breaks down households by income, renter vs. owner, and
age of householder. This data is only available down to a countywide
basis. As shown, there are an estimated 5,065 households (1,930 owner
plus 3,135 renter households) earning less than $9,999.
This special tabulation further segregates households into those “With
Conditions”, which is defined as a household having at least one of the
following housing conditions:
Page 56 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Housing Profile
Page 42
lacking complete plumbing facilities,
lacking complete kitchen facilities,
more than 1.01 persons per room, and
monthly shelter costs greater than 30 percent of household income
1,770
1,105 760 1,180 1,075 930 930 990 760 1,190 940 685 390 24 50 125
2,845
2,190
2,040
2,715
1,235 1,015 795 625
295
550
325 430
10 10 30 30
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
Income Distribution by Tenure -With Conditions
Benton/Franklin Counties
Owners Renters
Source: Economic and Market Analysis Division -HUD, Special
Tabulations of 2016 ACS 5-Year Survey Data
As shown, there are 4,615 households (1,770 owner plus 2,845 renter
households), or 91% of households earning less than $9,999 that have
housing “With Conditions.” These households can be described as
precariously housed.
Affordable Housing
Gap
The following demand profiles summarize housing affordability based on
the “CHAS” dataset (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy),
which consists of special tabulations based on ACS census figures (latest
available are the 2011-2015 five-year estimates) cross tabulated with HUD
adjusted Median Family Incomes to create estimates of the number of
households that would qualify for HUD assistance.
These figures are used to demonstrate the number of households in need
of housing assistance. Each profile compares the estimated number of
owner and renter households at various affordable income program levels
to the number of households in “affordable” units (i.e. the household is
paying less than 30% of household income toward housing costs) to those
households that are cost burdened (i.e. housing costs are greater than
30% of household income). The difference, or “gap” in units, was then
converted to the number of units per 100 households to allow for easy
comparison between geographic areas. Also shown are the number of
Page 57 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Housing Profile
Page 43
households that have “housing problems”, defined by HUD as households
that have at least one of the following: incomplete kitchen facilities,
incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1 person per room
(overcrowding), and cost burden greater than 30%.
Washington State
Source 2015 ACS
Households 2,668,910
Owner Households 1,668,070
Renter Households 1,000,840
% Renter 37.5%
Owner Household Demand Affordable Units Needed
% Owner Severly Households Cost Severely Housing
HH Distribution Owner Cost Cost Housing In Affordable In Affordable Burdened per Cost Burdened Problems
% of Median Family Income HUD Affordable Categories CHAS Data Households Burdened1 Burdened2 Problems3 Units per 100 HH 100 HH per 100 HH per 100 HH
<=30%Extremely Low Income 6.4%106,570 79,630 64,285 81,365 26,940 25 75 60 76
>30% to <=50%Very Low Income 7.9%132,095 78,275 43,935 80,995 53,820 41 59 33 61
>50% to <=80%Low Income 13.0%217,270 103,540 34,320 109,085 113,730 52 48 16 50
>80% to <=100%na 10.3%171,955 62,295 10,625 65,970 109,660 64 36 6 38
>100%na 62.4%1,040,185 111,380 10,915 123,570 928,805 89 11 1 12
Total 100.0%1,668,075 435,120 164,080 460,985 1,232,955 74 26 10 28
Renter Household Demand Affordable Units Needed
% Renter Severly Households Cost Severely Housing
HH Distribution Renter Cost Cost Housing In Affordable In Affordable Burdened per Cost Burdened Problems
% of Median Family Income HUD Affordable Categories CHAS Data Households Burdened1 Burdened2 Problems3 Units per 100 HH 100 HH per 100 HH per 100 HH
<=30%Extremely Low Income 23.5%234,815 182,495 151,270 186,495 52,320 22 78 64 79
>30% to <=50%Very Low Income 17.6%176,395 141,815 52,005 148,075 34,580 20 80 29 84
>50% to <=80%Low Income 19.5%194,960 93,750 10,725 104,445 101,210 52 48 6 54
>80% to <=100%na 10.8%108,455 21,965 1,610 27,740 86,490 80 20 1 26
>100%na 28.6%286,215 12,605 1,580 23,795 273,610 96 4 1 8
Total 100.0%1,000,840 452,630 217,190 490,550 548,210 55 45 22 49
1 Housing costs are >30% of household income
2 Housing costs are >50% of household income
3 Households has at least one of the following: incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1 person per room, and cost burden greater than 30%
For example, statewide for every 100 extremely low-income renter
households, 22 households reside in affordable units. Alternatively, it
shows that for every 100 renter households, 78 are “cost burdened”
(housing costs are more than 30% of household income) and 64 are
“severely cost burdened” (housing costs are more than 50% of household
income). Also, at this income level, 79 out of 100 renter households have
“housing problems” as defined by HUD above. Similar trends are shown
statewide for extremely low-income owner households with 75 out of 100
cost burdened, 60 out of 100 severely cost burdened and 76 out of 100
with housing problems.
As household incomes increase, more housing choices typically become
available and the gap shrinks. At the 50% to 80% income level statewide,
52 renter and 52 out of 100 owner households reside in affordable units.
Although the number of cost burdened households paying more than 30%
of income toward housing costs decreases with increasing household
income, 6 out of 100 renter households and 16 out of 100 owner
households are severely cost burdened statewide in Washington.
Page 58 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Housing Profile
Page 44
Benton & Franklin Counties
Source 2015 ACS
Households 92,155
Owner Households 62,105
Renter Households 30,050
% Renter 32.6%
Owner Household Demand Affordable Units Needed
% Owner Severly Households Cost Severely Housing
HH Distribution Owner Cost Cost Housing In Affordable In Affordable Burdened per Cost Burdened Problems
% of Median Family Income HUD Affordable Categories CHAS Data Households Burdened1 Burdened2 Problems3 Units per 100 HH 100 HH per 100 HH per 100 HH
<=30%Extremely Low Income 5.8%3,575 2,475 1,885 2,580 1,100 31 69 53 72
>30% to <=50%Very Low Income 6.6%4,125 1,895 965 2,155 2,230 54 46 23 52
>50% to <=80%Low Income 13.4%8,340 3,170 690 3,555 5,170 62 38 8 43
>80% to <=100%na 10.4%6,480 1,385 220 1,685 5,095 79 21 3 26
>100%na 63.7%39,585 1,370 95 1,980 38,215 97 3 0 5
Total 100.0%62,105 10,295 3,855 11,955 51,810 83 17 6 19
Renter Household Demand Affordable Units Needed
% Renter Severly Households Cost Severely Housing
HH Distribution Renter Cost Cost Housing In Affordable In Affordable Burdened per Cost Burdened Problems
% of Median Family Income HUD Affordable Categories CHAS Data Households Burdened1 Burdened2 Problems3 Units per 100 HH 100 HH per 100 HH per 100 HH
<=30%Extremely Low Income 22.1%6,655 5,395 4,465 5,505 1,260 19 81 67 83
>30% to <=50%Very Low Income 19.7%5,905 4,565 1,660 4,905 1,340 23 77 28 83
>50% to <=80%Low Income 22.2%6,660 2,600 240 3,340 4,060 61 39 4 50
>80% to <=100%na 10.1%3,035 330 10 735 2,705 89 11 0 24
>100%na 25.9%7,795 239 130 730 7,556 97 3 2 9
Total 100.0%30,050 13,129 6,505 15,215 16,921 56 44 22 51
1 Housing costs are >30% of household income
2 Housing costs are >50% of household income
3 Households has at least one of the following: incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1 person per room, and cost burden greater than 30%
Similar trends were shown for Benton & Franklin Counties. For every 100
extremely low income owner households earning less than 30% AMI, 53
out of 100 (1,885 owner households) and 67 out of 100 (4,465 renter
households) are severely cost burdened for a combined 6,350
households. Also at this income level, 2,580 owner households and 5,505
renter households for a combined 8,085 households have “housing
problems” as defined by HUD. These data show that there is a significant
shortage of affordable housing, especially for the extremely low income
that are severely cost burdened or are living in substandard housing and
considered precariously housed.
Page 59 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Homelessness Profile
Page 45
Homelessness Profile
Page 60 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Homelessness Profile
Page 46
Homelessness Profile
Introduction People who are homeless are as varied as the general population with
different family relationships, backgrounds, ages, ethnicities and genders.
Common drivers of homelessness include extreme poverty; high levels of
physical, mental and social disabilities; and social isolation.5
Definition of
Homeless
Definitions of what constitutes homelessness can vary by jurisdiction and
within various agencies of government. The primary federal legislation
addressing homelessness is the McKinney-Vento Act of 1987, which has
been reauthorized several times since and created numerous homeless
assistance programs.
The two major definitions of homelessness in use by federal agencies are
the education definition (Section 725) of the McKinney-Vento Act, and the
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) definition (Section 103) of the
McKinney-Vento Act. Due to their length, full definitions are included in
the addendum.
In general, both definitions take homelessness to mean an individual or
family who “lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate night-time residence”.
Examples can include persons living in unsheltered locations such as
cars, parks, open spaces, abandoned buildings, camp grounds or other
places not ordinarily used as regular sleeping accommodations for human
beings. Also included are persons living in emergency shelters and
transitional housing.
The education (Section 103) definition expands to include children and
youth temporarily “doubled-up” (i.e. sharing housing due to loss of
housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason), migrant workers and
their children, as well as children living in motels. The McKinney-Vento
Act requires public schools to identify homeless children (under this
expanded definition) and provide free transportation and other services.
The narrower HUD definition (which excludes people “doubled-up” and
precariously housed) is used in the enumeration of the one night homeless
counts and little is known about the extent of overlap in identification
between these two definitions.6,7
5 Rossi, P. H., & Wright, J. D. (1987). The determinants of homelessness. Health Affairs, 6, 19–32.
6 Cunningham, Mary, et al. (2010). “Residential Instability and the McKinney-Vento Homeless Children and
Education Program: What We Know, Plus Gaps in Research,” Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
7 Shah, Melissa Ford, et al. (2015). “Homeless and Unstably Housed K-12 Students in Washington State:
Who are they and how are they faring?,” Olympia, Washington: Department of Social and Health Services |
Research and Data Analysis Division.
Page 61 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Homelessness Profile
Page 47
The “chronically homeless”, are a subpopulation of the homeless defined
by HUD as someone with a disabling condition such as a chronic health
problem, psychiatric or emotional condition, or physical disability that has
either:
Been continuously homeless for a year, or
Has experienced at least four episodes of homelessness in the last
three years.
Estimating the
Homeless
Population
Each year HUD prepares the Annual Homeless Assessment Report to
Congress (AHAR), which is a compilation of local level data from
throughout the county. The AHAR report is produced in two parts: part-
one is based on point-in-time counts of both sheltered and unsheltered
homeless populations; part-two relies on counts of the sheltered homeless
population over a full year provided by a sample of communities based on
data in their local Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS).
The point-in-time (PIT) counts are unduplicated one-night estimates of
both sheltered and unsheltered homeless populations. The one-night
counts are conducted by Continuums of Care nationwide and occur during
the last week in January of each year. Continuums of Care (CoC) are
local planning bodies responsible for coordinating the full range of
homeless services in a geographic area, which may cover a city, county,
metropolitan area, or an entire state.
Page 62 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Homelessness Profile
Page 48
Summary Profile of Homeless Subpopulations:
Source: 2017 AHAR (Part 2)
Typical Person (All Subpopulations:) Who Was Homeless in 2017 Typical Homeless Individual in 2017
A Man in Shelter by Himself A Man in Shelter by Himself
One-year Estimate 1,416,908 Sheltered Homeless One-year Estimate 950,497 Sheltered Indiduals
Gender 62.4%Male Gender 70.6%Male
Household Size 64.9%1-person HH Household Size 97.4%1-person HH
Age 33.0%Age 31 to 50 Age 40.7%Age 31 to 50
Disability 55.6%No disability Disability 50.8%No disability
Location 72.5%Were in a city Location 74.6%Were in a city
Before Entering Shelter 47.8%Already homeless Before Entering Shelter 49.6%Already homeless
Average Stay in Shelter 27 Nights Average Stay in Shelter 22 Nights
Places Adults Stayed -Before Entering Shelter Places Adult Individuals Stayed -Before Entering Shelter
2017 % total 2017 % total
Already homeless 539,585 47.8%Already homeless 471,682 49.6%
Housing 400,728 35.5%Housing 305,183 32.1%
Staying with family 175,179 15.5%Staying with family 129,472 13.6%
Staying with friends 125,250 11.1%Staying with friends 101,644 10.7%
Rented housing unit 88,653 7.9%Rented housing unit 64,318 6.8%
Owned housing unit 8,536 0.8%Owned housing unit 6,884 0.7%
Permanent supportive housing 3,110 0.3%Permanent supportive housing 2,865 0.3%
Institutional Settings 128,857 11.4%Institutional Settings 126,726 13.3%
Substance abuse center 29,548 2.6%Substance abuse center 28,257 3.0%
Correctional facility 52,281 4.6%Correctional facility 51,936 5.5%
Hospital 27,760 2.5%Hospital 27,249 2.9%
Psychiatric facility 19,268 1.7%Psychiatric facility 19,284 2.0%
Other Settings 60,071 5.3%Other Settings 46,905 4.9%
Hotel or motel 41,911 3.7%Hotel or motel 29,876 3.1%
Foster care home 3,544 0.3%Foster care home 3,445 0.4%
Other living arrangement 14,616 1.3%Other living arrangement 13,584 1.4%
Total 1,129,241 100.0%Total 950,496 100.0%
Typical Homeless Person in a Family in 2017 Typical Homeless Veteran in 2017
A Young Mother in Shelter with a Child A Man in Shelter by Himself
One-year Estimate 478,718 Sheltered People in Familes One-year Estimate 118,380 Sheltered Veterans
Gender 77.9%Female Gender 91.9%Male
Household Size 52.1%2 or 3-person HH Household Size 99.9%1-person HH
Age 60.8%Under age 18 Age 42.2%Age 51 to 61
Disability 78.5%No disability Disability 59.4%Had a disability
Location 68.3%Were in a city Location 72.0%Were in a city
Before Entering Shelter 53.0%Staying in housing Before Entering Shelter 55.1%Already homeless
Average Stay in Shelter 46 Nights Average Stay in Shelter 23 Nights
Places Adults in Families Stayed -Before Entering Shelter Places Veterans Stayed -Before Entering Shelter
2017 % total 2017 % total
Already homeless 71,539 38.1%Already homeless 65,234 55.1%
Housing 99,309 52.8%Housing 29,887 25.3%
Staying with family 47,354 25.2%Staying with family 10,225 8.6%
Staying with friends 24,720 13.2%Staying with friends 9,364 7.9%
Rented housing unit 25,239 13.4%Rented housing unit 8,890 7.5%
Owned housing unit 1,734 0.9%Owned housing unit 1,071 0.9%
Permanent supportive housing 262 0.1%Permanent supportive housing 337 0.3%
Institutional Settings 2,961 1.6%Institutional Settings 17,546 14.8%
Substance abuse center 1,497 0.8%Substance abuse center 4,964 4.2%
Correctional facility 690 0.4%Correctional facility 4,474 3.8%
Hospital 683 0.4%Hospital 4,854 4.1%
Psychiatric facility 91 0.0%Psychiatric facility 3,254 2.7%
Other Settings 14,167 7.5%Other Settings 5,676 4.8%
Hotel or motel 12,393 6.6%Hotel or motel 4,304 3.6%
Foster care home 122 0.1%Foster care home na na
Other living arrangement 1,149 0.6%Other living arrangement 1,372 1.2%
Total 187,976 100.0%Total 118,343 100.0%
Page 63 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Homelessness Profile
Page 49
NATIONAL TRENDS According to the 2017 AHAR (part-one), 553,742 people were homeless
nationally on a given night in January. Most (65%) were staying in
sheltered locations and 35% were found in unsheltered locations. Of
those sheltered, 21% were children under age 18, 10% were between the
ages of 18 and 24, and 63% were age 25 and older. Of those
unsheltered, 6% were children under age 18, 11% were between the ages
of 18 and 24, and 83% were age 25 and older. Homelessness has
declined by 14.4% since 2007 based on these PIT count figures. The
distribution for Washington State reflects a higher ratio of unsheltered
individuals compared to the national distribution.
Sheltered
Individuals,
34.9%
Unsheltered
Individuals,
31.8%
Sheltered
People in
Families,
30.3%
Unsheltered
People in
Families,
3.1%
Percent Homless by Household Type
Nationwide
Source: 2017 AHAR Part-One
Sheltered
Individuals,
31.9%
Unsheltered
Individuals,
38.1%
Sheltered
People in
Families,
27.4%
Unsheltered
People in
Families,
2.6%
Percent Homless by Household Type
Washington State
Source: 2017 AHAR Part-One
Typical Homeless
Profiles
Additional context is provided by HMIS (Homeless Management
Information System) data, which reflects one-year estimates for all people
who used emergency shelter or transitional programs at any time from
October through September 30 of the following year. The latest report
available is the 2017 AHAR (part-two).
The four tables on the previous page summarize the typical profiles of
various homeless subpopulations that used shelter services. While the
point in time (PIT) count reflects a “snap shot” of the number of homeless
on a single night in January, the HMIS data reflect one-year estimates.
For comparison, the national one-year sheltered homeless estimate of the
number of users of shelters and transitional programs is 1.4 million, nearly
four times larger than the 361,000-sheltered homeless counted by the PIT
count.
Page 64 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Homelessness Profile
Page 50
In general, the typical homeless person is a male over age 30, whose
primary living situation before the shelter services was homelessness
(48%) followed by housing (36%) with most in this category “doubled up”
(i.e. living with family or friends) followed by institutional settings (11%)
and other settings such living at hotels or motels or other living
arrangements. The profile changes slightly for the typical homeless
veteran, which is likely to be older and have a disability. The typical
person in a homeless family is likely to be a mother with a child, most
under the age of 18 whose primary living situation before shelter services
was some form of housing, most reflecting a doubled-up situation living
with family or friends.
Breakdown by
Regional CoC
In Washington State, there are seven HUD CoC regions; six representing
individual counties and the seventh the Balance of State (representing all
remaining Washington counties) as illustrated in the following map.
Homeless
Subpopulations
A breakdown of the homeless by various subpopulations is presented on
the following pages. Statewide, the chronically homeless represent nearly
one in four (23%) of the total homeless population and 37% of the
unsheltered population. In the Balance of State region (that includes the
Tri-Cities area), the chronically homeless represent about one in five
(21%) of the total homeless population and 44% of the unsheltered
population. The largest subgroups of the unsheltered population include
the severely mentally ill, victims of domestic violence and those with
chronic substance abuse problems.
Page 65 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Homelessness Profile
Page 51
Washington State
HUD 2017 Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Programs Homeless Populations and Subpopulations
Summary by Household Type
Emergency
Shelter
Transitional
Housing Total
% of Total
Sheltered Unsheltered
% of Total
Unsheltered Total % of Total
Households without children¹4,836 1,704 6,540 77.3%5,070 93.5%11,610 83.6%
Households with at least one adult and one child²750 1,073 1,823 21.5%170 3.1%1,993 14.4%
Households with only children³64 35 99 1.2%184 3.4%283 2.0%
Total Homeless Households 5,650 2,812 8,462 100.0%5,424 100.0%13,886 100.0%
Household Size 1.32 1.80 1.58 1.52
Summary of Persons in each Household Type
Emergency
Shelter
Transitional
Housing Total
% of Total
Sheltered Unsheltered
% of Total
Unsheltered Total % of Total
Persons in households without children¹4,890 1,736 6,626 52.9%7,834 91.2%14,460 68.5%
Persons Age 18 to 24 336 314 650 5.2%1,216 14.2%1,866 8.8%
Persons Over Age 24 4,554 1,422 5,976 47.7%6,618 77.0%12,594 59.7%
Persons in households with at least one adult and one child²2,492 3,296 5,788 46.2%543 6.3%6,331 30.0%
Children Under Age 18 1,505 1,991 3,496 27.9%292 3.4%3,788 17.9%
Persons Age 18 to 24 154 242 396 3.2%34 0.4%430 2.0%
Persons Over Age 24 833 1,063 1,896 15.1%217 2.5%2,113 10.0%
Persons in households with only children³66 41 107 0.9%214 2.5%321 1.5%
Total Homeless Persons 7,448 5,073 12,521 100.0%8,591 100.0%21,112 100.0%
Summary of Chronically Homeless Persons in each Household Type
Emergency
Shelter
Transitional
Housing Total
% of Total
Sheltered Unsheltered
% of Total
Unsheltered Total % of Total
Chronically Homeless persons without children¹1,251 37 1,288 73.7%3,062 95.9%4,350 88.1%
Chronically Homeless persons with at least one adult and one child²457 0 457 26.2%125 3.9%582 11.8%
Chronically Homeless persons with only children³2 0 2 0.1%5 0.2%7 0.1%
Total Chronically Homeless Persons 1,710 37 1,747 100.0%3,192 100.0%4,939 100.0%
% of Total Homeless 23.0%0.7%14.0%37.2%23.4%
Summary of all other Subpopulations Reported
Emergency
Shelter
Transitional
Housing Total
% of Total
Sheltered Unsheltered
% of Total
Unsheltered Total % of Total
Severely Mentally Ill 1,182 681 1,863 14.9%3,163 36.8%5,026 23.8%
Chronic Substance Abuse 685 451 1,136 9.1%2,387 27.8%3,523 16.7%
Veterans 548 546 1,094 8.7%999 11.6%2,093 9.9%
HIV/AIDS 48 22 70 0.6%187 2.2%257 1.2%
Victims of Domestic Violence 1,072 940 2,012 16.1%2,501 29.1%4,513 21.4%
Unaccompanied Youth 397 336 733 5.9%1,402 16.3%2,135 10.1%
Unaccompanied Youth Under 18 62 28 90 0.7%214 2.5%304 1.4%
Unaccompanied Youth 18-24 335 308 643 5.1%1,188 13.8%1,831 8.7%
Parenting Youth 94 146 240 1.9%16 0.2%256 1.2%
Parenting Youth Under 18 1 6 7 0.1%0 0.0%7 0.0%
Parenting Youth 18-24 93 140 233 1.9%16 0.2%249 1.2%
Children of Parenting Youth 156 200 356 2.8%18 0.2%374 1.8%
Total Homeless Persons 7,448 5,073 12,521 100.0%8,591 100.0%21,112 100.0%
¹This category includes single adults, adult couples with no children, and groups of adults.
²This category includes households with one adult and at least one child under age 18.
³This category includes persons under age 18, including children in one -child households, adolescent parents and their children,
adolescent siblings, or other household configurations composed only of children.
Page 66 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Homelessness Profile
Page 52
Balance of State - CoC 501
HUD 2017 Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Programs Homeless Populations and Subpopulations
Summary by Household Type
Emergency
Shelter
Transitional
Housing Total
% of Total
Sheltered Unsheltered
% of Total
Unsheltered Total % of Total
Households without children¹1,018 438 1,456 74.6%1,232 93.5%2,688 82.2%
Households with at least one adult and one child²185 281 466 23.9%81 6.2%547 16.7%
Households with only children³29 1 30 1.5%4 0.3%34 1.0%
Total Homeless Households 1,232 720 1,952 100.0%1,317 100.0%3,269 100.0%
Household Size 1.37 1.91 1.22 1.43
Summary of Persons in each Household Type
Emergency
Shelter
Transitional
Housing Total
% of Total
Sheltered Unsheltered
% of Total
Unsheltered Total % of Total
Persons in households without children¹1,039 450 1,489 48.6%1,350 83.9%2,839 60.8%
Persons Age 18 to 24 86 82 168 5.5%142 8.8%310 6.6%
Persons Over Age 24 953 368 1,321 43.2%1,208 75.0%2,529 54.1%
Persons in households with at least one adult and one child²616 926 1,542 50.4%254 15.8%1,796 38.5%
Children Under Age 18 380 567 947 30.9%134 8.3%1,081 23.1%
Persons Age 18 to 24 32 77 109 3.6%23 1.4%132 2.8%
Persons Over Age 24 204 282 486 15.9%97 6.0%583 12.5%
Persons in households with only children³29 1 30 1.0%6 0.4%36 0.8%
Total Homeless Persons 1,684 1,377 3,061 100.0%1,610 100.0%4,671 100.0%
Summary of Chronically Homeless Persons in each Household Type
Emergency
Shelter
Transitional
Housing Total
% of Total
Sheltered Unsheltered
% of Total
Unsheltered Total % of Total
Chronically Homeless persons without children¹201 0 201 75.3%633 89.8%834 85.8%
Chronically Homeless persons with at least one adult and one child²66 0 66 24.7%72 10.2%138 14.2%
Chronically Homeless persons with only children³0 0 0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%
Total Chronically Homeless Persons 267 0 267 100.0%705 100.0%972 100.0%
% of Total Homeless 15.9%0.0%8.7%43.8%20.8%
Summary of all other Subpopulations Reported
Emergency
Shelter
Transitional
Housing Total
% of Total
Sheltered Unsheltered
% of Total
Unsheltered Total % of Total
Severely Mentally Ill 264 222 486 15.9%601 37.3%1,087 23.3%
Chronic Substance Abuse 153 179 332 10.8%275 17.1%607 13.0%
Veterans 99 122 221 7.2%162 10.1%383 8.2%
HIV/AIDS 4 1 5 0.2%8 0.5%13 0.3%
Victims of Domestic Violence 288 211 499 16.3%369 22.9%868 18.6%
Unaccompanied Youth 114 77 191 6.2%123 7.6%314 6.7%
Unaccompanied Youth Under 18 29 1 30 1.0%6 0.4%36 0.8%
Unaccompanied Youth 18-24 85 76 161 5.3%117 7.3%278 6.0%
Parenting Youth 19 41 60 2.0%9 0.6%69 1.5%
Parenting Youth Under 18 0 0 0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%
Parenting Youth 18-24 19 41 60 2.0%9 0.6%69 1.5%
Children of Parenting Youth 30 53 83 2.7%9 0.6%92 2.0%
Total Homeless Persons 1,684 1,377 3,061 100.0%1,610 100.0%4,671 100.0%
¹This category includes single adults, adult couples with no children, and groups of adults.
²This category includes households with one adult and at least one child under age 18.
³This category includes persons under age 18, including children in one -child households, adolescent parents and their children,
adolescent siblings, or other household configurations composed only of children.
Page 67 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Homelessness Profile
Page 53
Within these regional CoCs, King County is the largest individual county
region by population and overall number of homeless persons. King
County also has the highest rate of homelessness at 5.4 per 1,000
persons of total population and 50.5 per 1,000 persons below the poverty
line. The Balance of State region is largely represented by rural counties,
had a homelessness rate of 2.0 per 1,000 persons and 13.8 per 1,000
persons below the poverty line – within the range of the remaining
individual county CoC regions.
2017 Homeless 2016 Homeless 2007 Homeless 2016-17 2017-07
Persons Persons Persons % Change % Change
Washington State 21,112 20,827 23,379 1.4%-9.7%
King County - CoC 500 11,643 10,730 7,902 8.5%47.3%
Balance of State - CoC 501 4,671 5,294 6,995 -11.8%-33.2%
Spokane County - CoC 502 1,090 981 1,357 11.1%-19.7%
Pierce County - CoC 503 1,321 1,762 1,596 -25.0%-17.2%
Snohomish County - CoC 504 1,066 960 3,453 11.0%-69.1%
Yakima County - CoC 507 572 412 684 38.8%-16.4%
Clark County - CoC 508 749 688 1,392 8.9%-46.2%
Total 2017 Homeless Persons in 2017 Homeless
2017 Homeless Population Rate Per 1,000 % Below Poverty Rate Per 1,000
Persons 2017 Persons Poverty 2017 Persons in Poverty
Washington State 21,112 7,310,300 2.9 12.7%928,408 22.7
King County - CoC 500 11,643 2,153,700 5.4 10.7%230,446 50.5
Balance of State - CoC 501 4,671 2,284,000 2.0 14.8%337,528 13.8
Spokane County - CoC 502 1,090 499,800 2.2 15.6%77,969 14.0
Pierce County - CoC 503 1,321 859,400 1.5 12.7%109,144 12.1
Snohomish County - CoC 504 1,066 789,400 1.4 9.3%73,414 14.5
Yakima County - CoC 507 572 253,000 2.3 20.5%51,865 11.0
Clark County - CoC 508 749 471,000 1.6 10.2%48,042 15.6
Enumerating the homeless population in rural areas is extremely difficult.
One issue is lack of awareness; with expansive geography and low
population density. Consequently, the unstably housed and unsheltered
are less visible than urban locations. Urban counts are most often based
on the number of homeless service users in an area. Because there are
typically less services in rural areas, the point in time count understates
the homeless population. Patterns of rural homelessness include a desire
to remain in their local community or few options to leave. Housing
options include a limited number of shelters; doubling up with family or
friends, severely substandard structures that would likely be condemned in
urban areas; outdoor locations; vehicles and abandoned buildings. For
those doubling up, it is a common cultural norm based upon the belief of
taking care of one’s own.8
8 National Health Care for the Homeless Council. (June 2013). “Rural Homelessness: Identifying and
Understanding the ‘Hidden Homeless.’” In Focus: A Quarterly Research Review of the National HCH
Council, 1:4. [Author: Sarah Knopf-Amelung, Research Assistant.] Nashville, TN: Available at:
www.nhchc.org.
Page 68 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Homelessness Profile
Page 54
Benton/Franklin
County Trends
The Washington State Department of Commerce is the entity that
administers state the Balance of State region and federal fund sources
that support homeless programs and manages the state’s Homeless
Management Information System (HMIS) to collect data and measure
performance.
There are essentially four recognized sources in Washington State to
count the number of homeless individuals and families each year at a
county level basis. According to the Department of Commerce, because
of the complexity of homelessness and funding requirements, no one
method is more accurate or comprehensive than another. The different
counts are meant to provide the most information possible about the
numbers of people experiencing homelessness and housing instability.
The four sources are:
1) Point in Time Count (PIT) of people homeless on a single day in
January each year
2) “Snapshot” of Homelessness in Washington State supplementing
the PIT Count
3) Count of people served by, entered into, and/or exited from a
housing assistance program over the course of a year according to
the homeless management information system (HMIS)
4) Count of homeless students each school year
POINT IN TIME
COUNT
In Benton/Franklin Counties, there were 163 homeless persons counted in
January 2018. Over the past five years, overall homelessness increased
15%; those sheltered increased by 6% and the unsheltered increased by
25%. The chronic homeless make up 26% of the total homeless
population in 2018 averaging 15% over the previous five years.
Page 69 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Homelessness Profile
Page 55
59 46
430
51 61 22 73 64 36 76 59 28 80
692
542
454
330 372
144
251
78 190 196 218 195 83
751
588
884
381 433
166
324
142
226 272 277 223
163
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
PIT Estimates of Homeless People -Benton/Franklin Counties
Unsheltered Sheltered All Homeless
Point in Time Count of Homeless Persons (Tri-Cities, Benton/Franklin Counties)
Sheltered Unsheltered Total Homeless (sheltered and unsheltered)Temporarily Living Chronically Homeless
HH w/out HH with HH with only Total HH w/out HH with HH with only Total HH w/out HH with HH with only with Family or Emerg. Shelter Total
Year minors minors minors Sheltered minors minors minors Unsheltered minors minors minors Total Friends + Safe Haven UnshelteredChronic
2006 297 395 na 692 36 23 na 59 333 418 na 751 461 42 13 55
2007 233 309 na 542 28 18 na 46 261 327 na 588 192 85 85
2008 116 338 na 454 209 221 na 430 325 559 na 884 125 136 246 382
2009 116 214 na 330 32 19 na 51 148 233 na 381 219 24 4 28
2010 140 228 4 372 43 17 1 61 183 245 5 433 183 17 10 27
2011 65 79 -144 17 5 -22 82 84 0 166 287 25 3 28
2012 149 99 3 251 57 15 1 73 206 114 4 324 567 37 20 57
2013 58 20 0 78 50 14 0 64 108 34 0 142 387 9 23 32
2014 119 71 0 190 32 4 0 36 151 75 0 226 na 19 14 33
2015 133 63 0 196 55 21 0 76 188 84 0 272 na 21 19 40
2016 153 65 0 218 57 2 0 59 210 67 0 277 na 6 0 6
2017 115 70 10 195 28 0 0 28 143 70 10 223 na 25 17 42
2018 26 50 7 83 68 12 0 80 94 62 7 163 na 7 36 43
Source: Annual Point in Time Count; every January
The PIT count is a “snapshot” of the population experiencing
homelessness at a given day in January. The following are challenges
and limitations of the street count:
Many homeless do not want to be located, which hampers
detection during the street count – especially families,
undocumented individuals and unaccompanied youth and young
adults.
Unsheltered homeless may be sleeping in vehicles and abandoned
structures that are difficult to identify.
Inherent biases in visual observation of those whose physical
appearance can be mistaken for non-homeless that hide in plain
sight and appear stably housed.
Page 70 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Homelessness Profile
Page 56
May not be representative of fluctuations and compositional
changes in the population either seasonally or over time.
Recruitment of an adequate number of guides and volunteers to
complete a comprehensive count can be difficult in suburban and
rural areas with large geographies with limited resources
It does not count the number of unique persons experiencing
homelessness over a calendar year, which is higher than a single
point in time. It undercounts those whose homelessness does not
last very long but need services and emergency shelter.
Overall, the count is considered conservative and considered a measure
of the minimum number of unsheltered individuals experiencing
homelessness. The annual total could easily be greater than two to three
times or more than the PIT count.
SUPPLEMENTAL
HOMELESS
PROFILE (KING CO.)
All Home is the lead agency in Seattle/King County that conducts and
reports the findings of the Point-In-Time count. In addition to the general
street and shelter count, they conduct an in person representative survey
of homeless individuals immediately following the general street count to
supplement the PIT figures. While an urban area, the following are some
general findings from the 2018 Survey.
General Findings
Approximately 70% of all surveyed reported living with at
least one health condition (psychiatric, PTSD or addiction
were the most common)
98% of those surveyed said they would move into safe and
affordable housing if it were offered
53% of the unsheltered population were living in vehicles
36% reported living with friends/relatives prior to
experiencing homelessness
Chronic Homelessness Findings
97% of the chronic homeless total were persons without
children
71% surveyed were male
85% surveyed were over age 25
27% surveyed were age 51 and older
71% of chronic homelessness were unsheltered vs
sheltered
63% reported living with psychiatric or emotional conditions
63% reported living with drug or alcohol abuse
Page 71 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Homelessness Profile
Page 57
57% reported living with post-traumatic stress disorder
24% not accessing community-based services
Of those accessing services, 20% reported not following
through or returning for services
62% reported having been to jail or juvenile detention
18% reported a history of foster care
SNAPSHOT OF
HOMELESSNESS
REPORT
The Snapshot of Homelessness is a supplemental report to the Point In
Time count for the month of January published by the Department of
Commerce. The information is based on data collected by case managers
in homeless provider agencies, case workers at social service offices, and
field representatives to several client level databases throughout the state.
Research Staff at the Department of Social and Health Services combine
multiple datasets into a supplemental count of homeless people. The
snapshot includes “Homeless Only” that refers to unsheltered and those
living in emergency shelters and “Homeless or Unstably Housed” that also
includes those doubled up with friends or family.
SNAPSHOT of Homelessness in Benton/Franklin Counties
Homeless or Unstably Housed, New and Continuing Persons
January TOTAL Child Only
Parenting
Teens
Youth (18-24)
w/o Children
Adults (25+)
w/o
Children
Single
Parent with
Children
Two Parents
with
Children Unknown
2017 3,454 **553 1,720 840 330 -
2016 3,671 *-630 1,735 909 391 *
2015 3,924 **742 1,789 905 481 -
2014 3,690 *-723 1,604 904 453 *
Homeless Only (Emergency Shelter of Unsheltered), New and Continuing Persons
January TOTAL Child Only
Parenting
Teens
Youth (18-24)
w/o Children
Adults (25+)
w/o
Children
Single
Parent with
Children
Two Parents
with
Children Unknown
2017 845 -*127 523 165 28 -
2016 961 *-173 552 149 86 -
2015 927 --199 521 134 73 -
2014 903 *-199 497 121 85 -
* represents suppressed due to fewer than 10 responses
Unstably Housed Only, New and Continuing Persons
January Total Child Only
Parenting
Teens
Youth (18-24)
w/o Children
Adults (25+)
w/o
Children
Single
Parent with
Children
Two Parents
with
Children Unknown
2017 2,609 **426 1,197 675 302 -
2016 2,710 *-457 1,183 760 305 *
2015 2,997 **543 1,268 771 408 -
2014 2,787 *-524 1,107 783 368 *
* represents suppressed due to fewer than 10 responses
In Benton/Franklin Counties, there were 3,454 “Homeless or Unstably
Housed” persons for the month of January in 2017 (note 2018 is not
available). Of these, 845 homeless persons were counted as “literally”
homeless or about 24% of the total. This ratio has been fairly consistent
over the past four years at 25%. Adults without children (the most
common chronically homeless subpopulation) reflected 523 persons or
Page 72 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Homelessness Profile
Page 58
about 62% of the total homeless counted. This ratio has also been fairly
consistent over the past four years.
HMIS Calendar Year
Counts
The Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) is an electronic
record system that records continuous case management of homeless
persons. The Department of Commerce is responsible for operating an
HMIS for counties that do not operate their own compliant system such as
Benton and Franklin Counties. Pierce, Clark, King, Snohomish and
Spokane Counties operate their own systems. All homeless service
providers receiving public funding are required to enter personal identifiers
and other information about those served each day by their programs.
Annual People Served - Year to Year Comparison
County FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 3-Year Avg
Benton/Franklin Total Annual Project Entries*1,780 2,949 2,087 2,272
Median Length of Time Homeless (Days)29 39 55 41
Exits to Permanent Housing**1,032 1,711 1,314 1,352
Exits to Permanent Housing (%)58%58%63%60%
Returns to Homelessness***178 324 104 202
Returns to Homelessness (%)10%11%5%9%
Unsheltered Entries****498 1,110 924 844
Unsheltered Entries (%)28%38%44%37%
Point in Time Count 272 277 223 257
Source: Washington State Homeless System Performance (Year to Year) - Department of Commerce
** % of people who extited ES, SH, TH & RRH to permanent housing destinations
*** % of people who exited homelessness 2 years prior to reporting period
**** % unsheltered within 2 years prior to project entry People Enrolled by Project Type (FY 2017-18)
* Count of people who entered the following project types (HP, RRH, ES, TH & other Permenant Housing). This is a count of enrollments and there
will be duplication if the person was served more than once in the same project or multiple projects.
As shown, an average annual 2,272 people entered the homeless HMIS
system seeking housing assistance over the prior three years where the
average person was homeless for 41 days. Of those entering the system,
an average 9% of entries had previously exited homelessness within two
years prior to the reporting period; an average 37% of entries were
unsheltered within two years prior to the reporting period and roughly 60%
exited to permanent housing in any given year.
Housing assistance programs include the following:
Homeless Prevention (HP): short-term rent assistance to prevent
evictions from rental units
Rapid Rehousing (RRH): short-term rent assistance (usually less
than six months) to move homeless people into housing, typically
in a private, for-profit rental
Page 73 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Homelessness Profile
Page 59
Emergency Shelter (ES): typically, up to 90 days of emergency
housing, in a shared space filled with bunk beds
Transitional Housing (TH): up to two years of housing and
services, typically in a dedicated building
Permanent Housing including Permanent Supportive Housing
(PSF): deep, long-term rental subsidies and/or permanent housing
in a dedicated building for chronically homeless people with severe
and persistent disabilities
People Enrolled by Project Type (FY 2017-18)
Total People Served
Benton/Franklin % of
Intervention Fiscal Year 2017-18 Total
Homeless Prevention (HP)743 36%
Rapid Rehousing (RRH)941 45%
Emergency Shelter (ES)262 13%
Transitional Housing (TH)80 4%
Permanent Housing (All Types)61 3%
Total 2,085 100%
Source: Washington State Homeless System Performance
(County Report Card) - Department of Commerce
For the current fiscal year (July 2017 through June 2018), the primary
housing interventions provided (81%) were Homeless Prevention (36%)
and Rapid Rehousing (45%). Only 3% were served by Permanent
Housing.
Household's Living Situation Before Entry (FY 2017-18) - ALL HOUSEHOLDS
Homeless % of Rapid % of Emergency % of Transitional % of Combined % of
Prevention (HP)Total Rehousing (RRH)Total Shelter (ES)Total Housing (TH)Total Total Total
Hotel/Motel 11 3%------11 1%
Institutional Situation 4 1%72 17%5 3%2 11%83 8%
Permanent Housing 288 73%95 22%36 25%5 26%424 43%
Family & Friends 77 20%------77 8%
Sheltered Homeless 5 1%117 28%6 4%6 32%134 14%
Unsheltered Homeless 8 2%135 32%99 68%6 32%248 25%
Unknown 1 0%4 1%----5 1%
Total 394 100%423 100%146 100%19 100%982 100%
Source: Rapid Re-housing Dashboard, Homeless Prevention Dashboard, Temporary Housing Dashboard - Department of Commerce
The HMIS data includes information on homeless household’s living
situation prior to entry. Those requiring Homeless Prevention largely
resided in Permanent Housing (73%); those in Rapid Rehousing and
Transitional Housing were roughly split between Permanent Housing (22%
to 26%), Sheltered Homeless (28% to 32%), Unsheltered Homeless and
Institutional Situations (11% to 17%) with the bulk of Emergency Shelter
users previously Unsheltered Homeless (68%). The combined homeless
household population (All Households Sheltered and Unsheltered) prior to
Page 74 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Homelessness Profile
Page 60
entry into HMIS for the current fiscal year was 382 according to these
figures.
Household's Living Situation Before Entry (FY 2017-18) - HOUSEHOLDS WITHOUT MINORS
Homeless % of Rapid % of Emergency % of Transitional % of Combined % of
Prevention (HP)Total Rehousing (RRH)Total Shelter (ES)Total Housing (TH)Total Total Total
Hotel/Motel 6 2%-----6 1%
Institutional Situation 3 1%70 17%--2 11%75 8%
Permanent Housing 131 33%42 10%1 1%4 21%178 18%
Family & Friends 52 13%-----52 5%
Sheltered Homeless 3 1%90 21%--5 26%98 10%
Unsheltered Homeless 5 1%54 13%40 27%4 21%103 10%
Unknown 1 0%4 1%---5 1%
Total 201 51%260 61%41 28%15 79%517 53%
Source: Rapid Re-housing Dashboard, Homeless Prevention Dashboard, Temporary Housing Dashboard - Department of Commerce
Filtered to Households without Minors, the combined homeless household
population (sheltered and unsheltered) prior to entry into HMIS for the
prior year was 201 according to these figures.
Homeless
Students
According to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, the number
of homeless youth has increased every year since the 2001
reauthorization of the McKinney-Vento Act, which requires all school
districts to report annually the number of homeless students enrolled in
schools. During the 2016/17 school year, 40,934 students were identified
as homeless, which amounted to 3.7% of students statewide.
Homeless Students - Washington State
Total Enrollment Homeless % Homeless Homelessness by Living Situation
School Year Pre Sch thru 12th Students Students Shelters Doubled Up Unsheltered Hotels/Motels
2011-12 1,044,613 27,390 2.6%6,524 18,332 1,205 1,329
2012-13 1,050,900 30,609 2.9%6,527 21,153 1,254 1,675
2013-14 1,056,809 32,539 3.1%5,608 23,409 1,613 1,909
2014-15 1,074,057 35,511 3.3%5,805 25,911 1,601 2,194
2015-16 1,088,959 39,671 3.6%6,174 28,942 2,134 2,421
2016-17 1,103,269 40,934 3.7%5,510 30,090 2,753 2,581
Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction
2.6%
2.9%3.1%3.3%
3.6%3.7%
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
13.5%
73.5%
6.7%
6.3%
2017 Homeless Living Situation
Shelters
Doubled Up
Unsheltered
Hotels/Motels
Page 75 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Homelessness Profile
Page 61
As shown in the previous chart, the largest proportion of those students
identified as homeless statewide had a living situation reported as
“doubled-up” (73.5%) followed by shelters (13.5%), unsheltered (6.7%)
and hotels/motels (6.3%). Since 2012, the “doubled-up” population has
grown from 66.9% to 73.5% of homeless students.
Homeless Students - Benton/Franklin Counties
Total Enrollment Homeless % Homeless Homelessness by Living Situation
School Year Pre Sch thru 12th Students Students Shelters Doubled Up Unsheltered Hotels/Motels
2011-12 51,541 833 1.6%110 612 29 82
2012-13 52,531 961 1.8%85 717 41 118
2013-14 53,290 1,068 2.0%93 873 17 85
2014-15 54,531 1,728 3.2%87 1,433 38 113
2015-16 56,072 1,301 2.3%83 1,092 31 69
2016-17 57,127 1,431 2.5%34 1,185 25 120
Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction
1.6%1.8%2.0%
3.2%
2.3%2.5%
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
2.4%
82.8%
1.7%
8.4%
2017 Homeless Living Situation
Shelters
Doubled Up
Unsheltered
Hotels/Motels
In the Tri-Cities region, the largest proportion of those students identified
as homeless had a living situation reported as “doubled-up” (1,185
students, 82.8% of enrollment) followed by 120 in hotels/motels (8.4%), 34
in shelters (2.4%) and 25 classified as unsheltered (1.7%). Since 2012,
the “doubled-up” population has grown from 73.5% to 82.8% of homeless
students. There were 1,431 students identified as homeless over the
2016-17 schoolyear. If each of these students has at least one
parent/guardian, would infer a homeless family population of more than
2,800 based on the expanded homeless definition that includes those
living doubled-up or in hotels/motels.
Page 76 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Homelessness Profile
Page 62
Benton-Franklin Counties
Total Population by Relationship
ACS 5-year Estimates
2017 2016 2015
Total:279,653 275,329 271,373
In households:275,712 271,231 267,248
In family households:240,200 237,190 234,229
Householder:68,401 66,629 65,837
Male 35,362 35,434 35,654
Female 33,039 31,195 30,183
Spouse 51,511 50,479 49,223
Child:96,237 96,056 94,717
Biological child 90,531 90,072 88,775
Adopted child 1,762 1,623 1,706
Stepchild 3,944 4,361 4,236
Grandchild 5,468 5,486 5,209
Brother or sister 3,004 2,964 3,194
Parent 2,921 3,100 3,173
Parent-in-law 597 668 603
Son-in-law or daughter-in-law 1,118 1,475 1,326
Other relatives 3,747 3,478 3,948
Nonrelatives:7,196 6,855 6,999
Roomer or boarder 528 393 497
Housemate or roommate 1,606 1,388 1,355
Unmarried partner 3,699 3,603 3,941
Foster child 113 147 172
Other nonrelatives 1,250 1,324 1,034
In nonfamily households:35,512 34,041 33,019
Householder:27,797 26,946 26,318
Male:13,740 13,270 13,220
Living alone 10,563 10,433 10,519
Not living alone 3,177 2,837 2,701
Female:14,057 13,676 13,098
Living alone 12,070 12,013 11,437
Not living alone 1,987 1,663 1,661
Nonrelatives:7,715 7,095 6,701
Roomer or boarder 677 728 594
Housemate or roommate 3,273 3,265 2,913
Unmarried partner 2,874 2,457 2,576
Foster child 16 18 11
Other nonrelatives 875 627 607
In group quarters 3,941 4,098 4,125
Total Other nonrelatives (couch homeless)2,125 1,951 1,641
3-Year Average 1,906
Page 77 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Homelessness Profile
Page 63
Supplemental
Estimate of “Couch
Homeless”
There are no official estimates of the “couch homeless” -- the homeless
who stay with family or friends. Dr. Alan Hoback of the University of
Detroit Mercy has developed a proposed method for estimating the
precariously housed9. US Census figures count all household residents,
and the number of couch homeless with friends can be rationalized from
the data because the Census asks about the family or monetary
relationship between household members. The Census distinguishes
between family households and nonfamily households and within each
distinguishes “nonrelatives”, into roomer or boarder, housemate or
roommate, unmarried partner, foster child and other nonrelatives.
Hoback argues the category “other nonrelatives” is where the couch
homeless residing with friends are counted. If a resident had been paying
for part of the rent, then they would have been counted as a roommate or
boarder. All relatives, roommates, partners, and foster children have been
counted separately. This fits the definition of couch homeless because
when staying with friends, but not being a partner or paying rent, the
agreement to stay is not fixed to a contract, but only out of charity. Being
not fixed, qualifies them to be counted as couch homeless according to
the McKinney-Vento Act.
The previous table summarizes population by relationship for the Tri-Cities
region over the past three years. The estimated number of couch-
homeless staying with friends in the Tri-Cities region has averaged about
1,900 persons over the past three years based on this methodology.
Unfortunately, there is no similar way to show from Census data that any
of the related family members in a household were couch-homeless.
From other research surveys, such as the 2017 AHAR (part 2) summary
profile of homeless subpopulations presented earlier, an equal or greater
ratio of homeless surveyed reported staying with family than friends before
entering shelter. Therefore, the total “couch-homeless” population is likely
double that shown, likely in the 3,800-person range regionwide.
Local Input More than a dozen stakeholders and service providers were surveyed to
provide local insight into the homeless population in the Tri-Cities area.
These included homeless service providers, shelters, city and county
departments such as police, fire and human services, as well as various
health care providers. Below are some summary responses/insight
provided.
9 Hoback, Dr. Alan, et al, Proposed Method for Estimating Local Population of Precariously Housed,
Available at: http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/precariouslyhoused/Hobackreport.pdf
Page 78 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Homelessness Profile
Page 64
Tri-Cities Union Gospel Mission (Andrew Porter, Executive Director)
Shelter Beds Provided: 162 beds in new men’s shelter opening in
December including 112 rescue beds (90 day max) and 50 beds
(up to two years) for addiction/recovery with case management.
32 beds for women and children
Through December 3rd, 663 unique individuals sought shelter (520
men and 143 women). This would infer 60 new individuals per
month on average or over 700 new individuals annually. Over
33,000 nights of shelter provided over the year – many nights at
maximum capacity or greater.
There is a shortage of affordable rentals in the market. There is a
shortage of low barrier options – UGM does not allow drugs or
alcohol. A permanent supportive housing (PSH) under a Housing
First model would fill a gap not currently existing in the area
Overall homeless population estimated at over 1,000. Chronic
homeless population meeting the HUD definition difficult to gauge,
but felt a 50-unit PSH project would be well received
Pasco Fire Department (Michele Crowley, EMS Captain/Paramedic)
The homeless population represents approximately 2% of the total
patient contact calls for service annually. There were 76 homeless
calls in 2018. Over the past five years, annual homeless calls
have ranged from 64 to 76 per year (note that one patient can
generate multiple calls)
High volume users of the system (repeat patients) are
recommended to the Consistent Care Program.
System users that continue to have contacts with Pasco Police
and/or Fire and/or the court systems are monitored through the
“Hot Spotters” program.
87% of the homeless population contacted were transported to
area hospitals
Current data points to an increasing trend in calls from the low
point in 2016. Since 2016, they are seeing an increase in the
female homeless population.
Page 79 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Homelessness Profile
Page 65
Pasco Police Department (Brad Gregory, Sergeant)
Unscientific survey – there are about 30 chronically homeless
people we run into consistently. We have also been running into
people that are “couch surfing” with no real place to live so that
number could be much higher
Consistent Care (Becky Grohs, Chief Operations Officer)
Of the 800 patients served overall, there are approximately 15
chronically homeless individuals receiving case management that
are in and out of jail. There are approximately 25 to 35 chronically
homeless clients served with a major mental illness.
There are homeless individuals that refuse shelter services such
as the Union Gospel Mission, which is a clean and sober facility.
These individuals live outside including vehicles, bus stations and
encampments.
There is strong need for permanent supportive housing with wrap
around services, especially low barrier housing for the chronically
homeless.
Lourdes Counseling Center (Chris Hoag, PATH Case Manager)
PATH is a federal program – it stands for Projects Assisting with
Transition from Homelessness.
Chris reaches out to individuals who lack stable housing and have
a mental illness and assists in accessing and applying for benefits
from various service providers.
Clients are tracked in HMIS (Homeless Management Information
System).
Greatest need in the area is affordable housing. Homeless
individuals who are homeless and lack income compete with
higher income individuals for the same housing.
Even with financial assistance, individuals sometimes are unable to
find housing that is affordable with amount of assistance received.
Page 80 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Homelessness Profile
Page 66
Approximately 12% of our chronically mentally ill population have
homeless listed as their address. Number could be higher as
many of our mentally ill population do not update their address or
report when they are homeless
Greater Columbia Behavioral Health (Sindi Saunders, Quality Manager)
Page 81 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Conclusion & Findings
Page 67
Conclusion & Findings
Page 82 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Conclusion & Findings
Page 68
Conclusion & Findings
Summary of Key
Findings
The following are demand indicators previously described beginning with
the unstably housed narrowing to the chronically homeless population as
described in the analysis presented in this report.
In the Tri-Cities region (Franklin and Benton Counties) there are
approximately 40,000 individuals (13,600 households) that fall
below 100% of the poverty line. At 50% of the poverty line
(individuals earning less than $6,400 annually or roughly $10,000
for the typical household), there are approximately 16,000
individuals (5,500 households).
Households earning below 50% of the poverty line are much more
likely to be precariously/unstably housed. These people are on
the edge of becoming literally homeless and may be doubled up
with friends or family or paying an extremely high proportion of
their income (more than 50%) for shelter.
The current regional vacancy rate is 1.1% with an average
monthly rent of $830 or more, which can exceed the total annual
income of the typical household at 50% of the poverty line. Even
with financial assistance, these households are unable to find
housing that is affordable and compete with higher income
households for the same housing.
6,350 households are severely cost burdened (housing costs are
more than 50% of household income) for those households
earning less than 30% of area median income. There is
significant need for affordable housing for extremely low-income
households.
According to Census Data, the estimated number of “couch-
homeless” staying with friends has averaged 1,900 persons over
the past three years. Based on profiles from other research
studies, an equal or greater number reported staying with family
than friends before entering a shelter facility. The total “couch-
homeless” is likely double that shown.
In the Tri-Cities region, there were 1,431 homeless students for
the 2017 academic year. An estimated 83% reported a living
situation as “doubled-up” followed by hotel/motel, shelters and
Page 83 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Conclusion & Findings
Page 69
unsheltered. If each student had at least one parent/guardian –
would infer a homeless family population of more than 2,800.
Over the past three years, more than 2,200 people annually
entered the HMIS (Homeless Management Information System)
seeking housing assistance where the average person was
homeless for 41 days. It is noted that these enrollments include
some duplication if the person was served more than once in the
same project or multiple projects.
According the Snapshot of Homelessness, a supplemental report
to the annual Point in Time (PIT) count, there were 845 literally
homeless persons for the month of January in 2017 (2018 figures
not yet available). Over the prior four years, this figure has
averaged about 900 individuals.
According to the 2018 annual PIT count, there were 163
homeless persons counted (80 unsheltered) on a single night in
January. Over the past five years, the total homeless counted
has averaged 217 persons with overall homelessness increasing
15% (6% increase in sheltered and 25% for those unsheltered).
Of those counted during the 2018 PIT count, 26% (43 individuals)
were classified as “chronically” homeless. This population has
averaged about 15% of the overall homeless population (33
individuals) over the past five years and has been increasing over
the past three years.
According to figures provided by the Tri-Cities Union Gospel
Mission, the largest homeless shelter in the region, more than 700
new unique individuals sought shelter in 2018.
CHALLENAGES/
LIMITATIONS
The most conservative homeless demand estimate is the PIT count,
which is a “snapshot” of the population experiencing homelessness on a
given day in January. The following are challenges and limitations of the
street count:
Many homeless do not want to be located, which hampers
detection during the street count – especially families,
undocumented individuals and unaccompanied youth and young
adults.
Unsheltered homeless may be sleeping in vehicles and
abandoned structures that are difficult to identify.
Page 84 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Conclusion & Findings
Page 70
Inherent biases in visual observation of those whose physical
appearance can be mistaken for non-homeless that hide in plain
sight and appear stably housed.
May not be representative of fluctuations and compositional
changes in the population either seasonally or over time.
Recruitment of an adequate number of guides and volunteers to
complete a comprehensive count can be difficult in suburban and
rural areas with large geographies with limited resources
It does not count the number of unique persons experiencing
homelessness over a calendar year, which is higher than a single
point in time. It undercounts those whose homelessness does not
last very long but need services and emergency shelter.
Overall, the count is considered conservative and a measure of the
minimum number of unsheltered individuals experiencing homelessness.
The annual total could easily be greater than two to three times or more
than the PIT count.
Conclusion Based on the HMIS data supplemented with Union Gospel mission
counts, there are typically 700 or more literally homeless individuals in a
given year. The conservative PIT count and anecdotal support from local
service providers suggest a chronically homeless population of at least
30 individuals in a given year.
The prototype project envisioned is a 50-unit permanent supportive
housing project intended to serve homeless households with a
preference/priority for the chronically homeless in the greater Tri-Cities
area. A project of this type would require financial support from the Low-
Income Housing Tax Credit Program (LIHTC) and rental assistance
through HUD or other similar sources.
Assuming a 50-unit prototype project described in this report as a
baseline for development, it is my opinion that baseline homeless
demand (meeting the HUD definition) with a preference/priority for the
chronically homeless is deep enough to support development.
Page 85 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Addendum
ADDENDUM
Page 86 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services Addendum
Regional Overview
Page 87 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Addendum
Regional Data
Introduction
The Tri-Cities area is located in the southeastern portion of Washington
State at the confluence of the Columbia, Snake, and Yakima Rivers. The
area's name stems from the close proximity of the area’s three major
cities, Kennewick and Richland, located in Benton County, and Pasco,
located in Franklin County. The Tri-Cities are 130 miles southwest of
Spokane, 230 miles southeast of Seattle, and 220 miles east of Portland,
Oregon. The counties are separated by the Columbia River, the lifeblood
of the region. Agricultural irrigation, hydroelectric power - from Bonneville
Power Administration dams and power plants - and the Hanford Nuclear
plants are all dependent on the Columbia River.
Transportation The Tri-Cities area is served by several major highways. Interstate Hwy.
82 is the major east-west arterial through southeastern Washington. US
Hwy. 395 provides access north to Spokane and south to I-84 and the
communities of northeastern Oregon. State Route 240 links the Tri-Cities
with the Hanford nuclear reservation. Other modes of transportation
include barge service on the Columbia River, commercial air service at
the Pasco Municipal Airport, rail service, and buses. Airlines currently
serving the Tri-Cities Airport include Alaska Airlines, Allegiant, Delta
Airlines, and United Express.
Population According to the April 2018 estimate prepared by the Washington State
Office of Financial Management, Benton and Franklin Counties contain a
combined estimated population of 289,960, which is 3.9% of the
population of the entire State of Washington (7,427,570). The following
chart summarizes the population growth of the major cities, Kennewick,
Pasco, Richland and West Richland.
Page 88 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services Addendum
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
1990 2000 2010 2018
Population by Major Cities
Kennewick Pasco Richland West Richland
Population is viewed as an economic indicator of an area’s vitality as
people tend to migrate to an area that has economic opportunities.
Population is a lagging indicator in that it takes time for people to arrive
when jobs are present as well as to leave when demand for labor eases.
It provides insight into how the economy is performing and how the
economy has performed over time. With its current population estimated
at 283,830, population growth has accelerated since 1990, exceeding the
growth rate of the State. Prior to this period, economic recessions
plagued eastern Washington and only minimal growth occurred.
Population trends for Benton and Franklin County since 1990 are
detailed in the following table, juxtaposed with Washington State.
Page 89 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Addendum
Population 1990 2000 2010 2018
Washington State 4,866,663 5,894,143 6,724,540 7,427,570
Benton County 112,560 142,475 175,177 197,420
Franklin County 37,473 49,347 78,163 92,540
Two-County Total 150,033 191,822 253,340 289,960
'% of State Pop.3.08%3.25%3.77%3.90%
Growth 1990-00 2000-10 2010-18
Washington State 1,027,480 830,397 703,030
% Annual Change 2.11%1.41%1.31%
Benton County 29,915 32,702 22,243
% Annual Change 2.66%2.30%1.59%
Franklin County 11,874 28,816 14,377
% Annual Change 3.17%5.84%2.30%
Two-County Total 41,789 61,518 36,620
% Annual Change 2.79%3.21%1.81%
Net Migration 1990-00 2000-10 2010-18
Washington State 644,778 450,332 416,495
'% of Pop. Growth 62.8%54.2%59.2%
Benton County 18,077 20,683 11,791
'% of Pop. Growth 60.4%63.2%53.0%
Franklin County 4,528 17,712 4,073
'% of Pop. Growth 38.1%61.5%28.3%
Two-County Total 22,606 38,396 15,865
'% of Pop. Growth 54.1%62.4%43.3%
Population Trends
Population growth is affected by two factors: net migration (people
moving into and out of the area) and natural increase/decrease (from
births/deaths). One reason for the higher growth in the two-county region
has been net migration, particularly in Benton County, of which 60.4% of
the increase between 1990 and 2000 was due to net migration. During
the first 10 years after 2000, both counties’ net migration was over 60%
compared to 54.2% for the State. Similar to the State, since 2010, net
migration started out slowly due to the recession, but has picked up in
since 2013. Currently net migration share of the population increase is
43.3%, still below the 62.4% level during the first 10 years of the decade.
The State share of net migration is higher than the two counties at
59.2%, compared to 54.2% during the first 10 years of 2000.
DIRECTION
OF GROWTH
In response to the 1990 Washington Growth Management Act (GMA),
counties and cities are required to plan for expected future growth. The
Page 90 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services Addendum
GMA stipulates that new growth (population and jobs) should occur in
existing urban areas to minimize the negative effects of urban sprawl and
make efficient use of urban services. To accommodate these provisions,
cities and counties designate urban growth boundaries/areas (UGBs) to
contain future development. In Washington state, these UGBs are
typically set for 20 years and are based on 20-year projections of
population growth. These are the areas designated to accommodate
future growth. Overtime, growth in the region has primarily extended
west of Pasco and Richland and infill between Richland and Kennewick.
Employment Historically, the Tri-Cities economy has been primarily dependent on
business at Hanford and agricultural industries. In 1943 the town of
Hanford and the surrounding areas were selected as the Manhattan
Project (Hanford) Site. The population increased from 300 to 15,000 in
one year. The Hanford site continues to fuel the Tri-Cities economy and
the scientific community with Battelle’s Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, the Laser Inferometer Wave Observatory and numerous
others located there.
Focus changed in the late 1980’s to toxic waste clean-up and
environmental restoration. During the 1990’s Westinghouse was the
primary contractor for the cleanup. In 1996 Fluor Daniel took over.
Bechtel National is the primary subcontractor. In 2000 Bechtel was
awarded a $4 billion contract to construct a vitrification plant. The
contract added jobs and revenue to the counties and fueled demand for
office space and housing. Recently the new U.S Secretary of Energy,
Steven Chu, has stepped up the urgency in the clean-up campaign and
additional jobs were added as that plan proceeds.
A good share of the funding came from stimulus expenditures. In
January 2011, the department of Energy decided not to renew the
proposed Special Voluntary Retirement Program. These funds were
mainly assigned to the central Hanford and ground water clean-up
projects, and the main contractors involved laid off an estimated 1,600
workers at the end of the fiscal year, October 2011. To the extent
possible these layoffs were made through natural attrition, mitigating the
impact of the region. Some contractors picked up many of these people
and the estimated loss of 1,600 jobs is considered the maximum direct
impact, although there were likely losses due to reduced trade and
expenditure. As a result the market changed in 2011 and managers and
real estate professionals interviewed estimate that apartment vacancy
would increase to between 3% and 6%.
Page 91 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Addendum
Despite the cutbacks, overall, the employment picture has been mostly
positive, with the unemployment rate generally mirroring the State’s from
2006 up through 2008. Between 2008 and 2011, the Tri-Cities region
outperformed the State with lower unemployment rate, but a reversal
occurred in 2012 where the State’s unemployment rate is now lower than
the region as shown in the following chart.
5.3%5.5%
7.5%7.8%8.0%
8.9%9.1%
7.9%
6.8%6.9%
5.7%
4.6%
5.4%
9.4%
9.9%
9.2%
8.2%
7.0%
6.2%
5.7%5.4%
4.9%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Historic Unemployment Rates 2007-17
Tri-Cities MSA
Washington State
Agriculture also plays a key role in the economy. There are one million
acres of irrigated land with another million in reserve. Major
agriculture/food businesses located in the region include ConAgra, Tyson
Foods, Broetje Orchards, and Wyckoff Farms. The Port of Pasco
Processing Center provides extensive resources for food processing.
EMPLOYMENT
GROWTH
Up through 2011, the region was unique in that non-agricultural
employment continued to grow, particularly after the recession hit other
parts of the State and Country in 2008. Between 2000 and 2005, non-
agriculture employment grew at an annual rate of 3.1% and 2.8%
between 2005 and 2010. Between 2010 and 2011, the growth rate was
more than half at 1.3%. Sectors exhibiting strong growth included
Construction & Mining, Professional & Business Services, Education &
Health Services and Financial Activities. The latter three make up what
is more commonly known as the Service and Trade Sector. The growth
over this time frame was fueled by the stimulus funding for the clean-up
efforts and the vitrification plan associated with Hanford. However, that
funding was lost and between 2011 and 2012, over 2,700 jobs were lost.
Page 92 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services Addendum
Since 2015, there has been improvement across the board in all sectors,
except Transportation, Warehousing & Utilities. The following tables
chart non-agriculture growth between 2010 and 2017 as well as year
over year changes from May 2017 and May 2018. Current
unemployment is 5.2%, unchanged from 12 months prior.
Industry Sector 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2010-15 2015-17
Construction & Mining 6,200 6,500 6,000 6,200 6,300 6,700 7,100 8,000 1.6% 9.7%
Manufacturing 7,100 7,100 7,400 7,300 7,700 7,900 7,600 8,100 2.3% 1.3%
Trans/Warehousing/Utilities 5,200 5,200 5,400 5,700 6,000 6,400 6,400 6,200 4.6% -1.6%
Retail Trade 11,400 11,500 11,700 11,800 12,100 12,700 13,100 13,400 2.3% 2.8%
Financial Activities 3,600 3,600 3,800 4,000 3,900 4,000 4,100 4,000 2.2% 0.0%
Professional & Business Services 24,500 24,900 21,700 20,800 20,700 21,200 22,000 21,400 -2.7% 0.5%
Education & Health Services 13,000 13,300 13,400 13,700 14,400 14,800 15,200 15,600 2.8% 2.7%
Leisure & Hospitality 9,000 9,400 9,500 9,500 9,800 10,400 11,000 11,400 3.1% 4.8%
Services-Other 4,000 4,300 4,100 4,000 4,200 4,200 4,300 4,400 1.0% 2.4%
Government 18,000 18,100 18,200 18,500 18,600 19,000 19,700 20,000 1.1% 2.6%
Total NonAgr. Employment 102,000 103,900 101,200 101,500 103,700 107,300 110,500 112,500 1.0% 2.4%
Source: Washington State Employment Security Department; Numbers represent annual averages
Ann. % Chg
Non-Agriculture Employment in Tri Cities MSA (2010-2017)
(Benton-Franklin Counties)
Industry Sector 2018 2017 No Chg. % Chg.
Construction & Mining 9,600 9,200 400 4.3%
Manufacturing 7,300 7,900 (600) -7.6%
Trans/Warehousing/Utilities 6,200 6,600 (400) -6.1%
Retail Trade 13,800 13,100 700 5.3%
Financial Activities 3,900 3,900 0 0.0%
Professional & Business Services 21,200 21,300 (100) -0.5%
Education & Health Services 16,300 15,400 900 5.8%
Leisure & Hospitality 12,100 11,500 600 5.2%
Services-Other 4,400 4,500 (100) -2.2%
Government 20,500 20,300 200 1.0%
Total NonAgr. Employment 115,300 113,700 1,600 1.4%
Civilian Labor Force 138,372 137,427 945 0.7%
Resident Employment 131,181 130,261 920 0.7%
Unemployment 7,191 7,166 25 0.3%
Unemployment Rate 5.2% 5.2% (0.0) -0.3%
Source: Washington State Employment Security Department
Year over Year
Changes by Sector in Tri Cities MSA May 18 vs May 17
The current unemployment rate at 5.2% is below the annual average.
This is due to the seasonality of the workforce, which typically is higher
during the summer and fall months due to the ongoing harvest of
agricultural products. Comparing to the unemployment rate 12 months
prior, the rate is unchanged. Upon closer review, the number of
individuals entering the labor force looking for employment increased by
945 people over the past 12 months. Those finding work totaled 920,
Page 93 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Addendum
resulting in a minor upward blip in unemployment, but not enough to
increase the overall rate. Those numbers pertain to individuals living in
the Tri-Cities region but found work either within or outside the region.
On the non-agricultural side (jobs within the region), employment grew by
1,600 or 1.4%. Leading the way was Education & Health Services (+900
jobs), Retail Trade (+600 jobs), Leisure & Hospitality (+600 jobs), and
Construction (+400 jobs). These gains helped offset losses in
Manufacturing (-600 jobs),Transportation, Warehousing & Utilities (-400
jobs) as well as Professional & Business Services and Services-Other (-
100 jobs each).
Company Business Type Employees
1 Battelle/Pacific NW National Lab.Research & Dev.4,500
2 Kadlec Medical Center Health Services 3,532
3 Lamb Weston Food Processing 3,000
4 Bechtel National Engineering/Construction 2,943
5 Kennewick School District Education 2,336
6 Washington River Protection Environmental 2,129
7 Pasco School District Education 2,015
8 Mission Support Alliance Government 1,902
9 CH2M Hill Professional Bus Svcs 1,682
10 Richland School District Education 1,500
11 Tyson Foods Agriculture/Food 1,300
12 Trios Health Health Services 1,268
13 Energy Northwest Research & Dev.1,100
14 Broetje Orchards Agriculture/Food 920
15 Lourdes Health Network Health Services 804
Source: Tri City Development Council
Major Employers in Tri Cities MSA
MAJOR EMPLOYERS The table above lists the top 15 major employers in the Tri Cities as
compiled by TRIDEC. The primary employer for the Tri-Cities area is the
Department of Energy (DOE). According to the DOE website, the
environmental cleanup at Hanford, a project that has been ongoing since
1989, and in early 2018, includes about 11,000 employees, or about 10%
of the non-ag workforce.
The Hanford site comprises about 580 sq miles adjacent to the Columbia
River. The last reactor was shut down in 1987, but at that point 44 years
of plutonium production generated millions of tons of solid waste and
contaminated soil, as well as billions of gallons of contaminated liquids.
Since the start of the cleanup in 1989, 7.5 million gallons of pumpable
liquid waste have been removed and transferred from underground
storage tanks; 2,00 tons of the site’s spent fuel, has been removed from
areas around the river and placed in dry storage; 18 million tons of soil
Page 94 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services Addendum
and debris have been disposed of; 2.8 million gallons of chemical and
radioactive thick sludge and saltcake waste have been retrieved
underground storage tanks; and 1,314 waste sites including hundreds
along the Columbia River’s south shores have been remediated or
cleaned of pollution and contaminants. With the ongoing clean-up, it is
dependent upon the Federal Government funding. Last August (2017),
$195.7 million in additional federal funding was secured. However, the
Trump Administration is now proposing to cut $230 million on the
Hanford spending, which could put at jeopardy, the continued clean-up
effort. Washington State’s congressional delegation is working to ensure
that these cuts do not happen. Any cuts will prolong the effort to
complete the cleanup effort.
Wholesale and retail trade, services, and government are the three
largest non-agricultural employers in the Tri-Cities. Of the three
categories, the service sector is the largest source of employment in the
Tri-Cities. Employment in research and business services is one of the
Tri-Cities' economic foundations and includes such firms as Battelle-
Northwest, Westinghouse-Hanford, and Chevron Chemical, to name just
a few. Although the Hanford divisions are by far the largest employer,
other employment is also a significant contributor to the economy.
Colleges in the area include Columbia Basin Community College and a
Washington State University campus in Richland. Hospitals in the Tri-
Cities area include Our Lady of Lourdes Health Center in Pasco, Kadlec
Medical Center in Richland, and Trios Health (formerly Kennewick
General Hospital) in Kennewick, although Trios is having financial
difficulties, filing for bankruptcy in 2017. The end results include loss of
jobs and a restructuring that may take up to three years to work through.
Wine Industry
Trends
The region is also noted for agriculture, most notably in recent years with
the growth in the wine industry. Washington is the second largest
producer of grapes in the country, well behind California. There are over
55,000 acres of vineyards within 14 American Viticulture Areas (AVAs) in
the State. Within the Tri-Cities, AVAs include Horse Heaven Hills, Red
Mountain, Walla Walla, and Columbia Valley, which account for nearly
47% of the acreage planted with wine grapes. 2016 was a record year
for production with 270,000 tons produced at an average price/ton of
$1,160. 2017 results were lower at 229,000 tons. The production
included nearly 70 varieties including 64% reds and 36% whites. .
Retail Trade The region’s major retail areas are located near the Columbia Center
Mall in northwest Kennewick. New retail developments have been built in
Page 95 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Addendum
Richland north of I-182 near the new Wal-Mart. Most of Pasco’s retail
properties are located within two blocks of US Hwy. 395/12. There is an
outlet mall located north of I-182 and a new neighborhood shopping with
Lowes and Walmart just built near Rd. 68.
The following table summarizes taxable retail sale spending in the region
since 2012.
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Benton County
Unincorporated $182,440,926 $236,097,396 $230,907,711 $285,725,233 $268,173,916 $292,743,287
% Change -20.6%29.4%-2.2%23.7%-6.1%9.2%
Benton City $36,615,170 $38,889,689 $38,010,984 $36,299,779 $42,316,799 $42,513,651
% Change 11.1%6.2%-2.3%-4.5%16.6%0.5%
Kennewick $1,634,408,307 $1,723,129,112 $1,768,985,161 $1,930,747,112 $2,002,185,269 $2,024,430,731
% Change 4.9%5.4%2.7%9.1%3.7%1.1%
Prosser $113,206,280 $127,179,780 $134,798,275 $144,544,432 $153,932,509 $169,532,708
% Change 0.6%12.3%6.0%7.2%6.5%10.1%
Richland $903,715,002 $989,662,285 $1,041,223,862 $1,129,471,266 $1,207,961,570 $1,259,515,328
% Change -5.4%9.5%5.2%8.5%6.9%4.3%
West Richland $67,269,610 $74,896,805 $70,655,854 $85,985,395 $115,299,634 $116,907,793
% Change -6.0%11.3%-5.7%21.7%34.1%1.4%
Total-Benton County $2,937,655,295 $3,189,855,067 $3,284,581,847 $3,612,773,217 $3,789,869,697 $3,905,643,498
% Change -0.8%8.6%3.0%10.0%4.9%3.1%
Franklin County
Unincorporated $128,926,779 $142,733,108 $144,240,923 $155,843,514 $145,072,912 $164,707,177
% Change -0.2%10.7%1.1%8.0%-6.9%13.5%
Connell $37,960,126 $23,849,302 $24,871,666 $25,788,887 $23,169,479 $27,069,628
% Change 25.4%-37.2%4.3%3.7%-10.2%16.8%
Kahlotus $1,121,604 $861,746 $946,328 $935,363 $1,295,376 $1,488,731
% Change -17.1%-23.2%9.8%-1.2%38.5%14.9%
Mesa $8,024,474 $9,511,061 $9,163,637 $8,333,617 $8,467,018 $7,775,452
% Change 10.6%18.5%-3.7%-9.1%1.6%-8.2%
Pasco $861,063,279 $933,301,675 $1,016,794,531 $1,125,060,910 $1,250,472,836 $1,333,597,814
% Change 2.6%8.4%8.9%10.6%11.1%6.6%
Total Franklin County $1,037,096,262 $1,110,256,892 $1,196,017,085 $1,315,962,291 $1,428,477,621 $1,534,638,802
% Change 3.0%7.1%7.7%10.0%8.6%7.4%
Two-County Total $3,974,751,557 $4,300,111,959 $4,480,598,932 $4,928,735,508 $5,218,347,318 $5,440,282,300
% Change 0.2%8.2%4.2%10.0%5.9%4.3%
Source: Washington Department of Revenue
2012-2017
Benton-Franklin Counties
Taxable Retail Sales
Retail sales have for the most part increased in the 1990s up through
2008. In 2009, sales dropped 2.8%, but then recovered in 2010 with an
increase of 4.0%. Sales have increased every year since, although 2012
was mostly flat at 0.2%. 2015 saw sizable increase of 10%, while 2016
and 2017 were lower at 5.9% and 4.3% respectively. The table above
summarizes trends between 2012 and 2017.
Page 96 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services Addendum
Governmental
Forces
Local counties are governed by a County Executive/County Council
structure, whose jurisdiction is all unincorporated areas within each
county. Each county government oversees the assessment and
collection of property taxes and other special assessments, public safety,
planning, development, land use, public works, judicial matters, and
public health. Similar to the county government, the city government
oversees building codes and permits, land use (zoning), public safety,
public works, public health and judicial matters.
Two areas that have affected property values in recent years include the
passage of the Growth Management Act of 1990 (GMA), which was
intended as a major step in the development of rational policies to sustain
growth in Washington. All urban counties and cities have developed and
adopted comprehensive plans and regulations with regards to land use,
transportation, housing, capital facilities, natural environment, and
economic development. More specifically, one of the goals was to
reduce urban sprawl by creating higher density developments within the
urban core of metropolitan areas.
Governmental forces have also affected real property values in the area
of wetlands. While there are no comprehensive state wetland laws in
Washington, most local municipalities have regulations regarding
wetlands. In addition, each city attempts to accomplish the Federal
mandate of a “no net loss” goal through mitigation, a process, which
includes possible creation of new wetlands and can be very expensive,
and possibly deterring potential development.
Environment Environmental forces that affect property values include climatic
conditions, topography, natural barriers, transportation systems, and
surrounding property uses. The Tri-Cities have a pleasant desert climate
with warm summers and moderate winter temperatures. Benton and
Franklin Counties are located on lowland on the Columbia Plateau
between the Cascade Mountains and the Northern Rocky Mountains.
The topography generally consists of a basin and valley bottomland, with
upland plateaus. The area is crossed by long mountain ridges.
The region has an abundance of waterways. The Columbia River is a
major resource of the area. Its dams and lakes are used for navigation,
recreation, irrigation, and power production. The Yakima River provides
irrigation for Benton County. The Snake River, combined with the
Columbia is a key component to the transportation network of the Pacific
Northwest, navigable as far as Clarkston and Lewiston on the
Washington-Idaho border. It is also a significant fishery resource.
Page 97 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Addendum
Regional Real Estate
Trends
Office Market: Most of the region’s office and high-tech development is
located in north Richland. Recently there has been an increase in office
and business park construction near Vista Field and Columbia Place in
Kennewick. Several new medical and professional office buildings have
been built near Kennewick General Hospital. More office buildings are
being built in Columbia Place west of Columbia Center Mall. As supply
had remained tight and new jobs were added to the market over the past
few years, the office market has been stable. Looking ahead, the health
of the office market will ultimately hinge on which direction job growth
goes and the overall sustainability of government contract work, which
remains to be seen. According to CoStar, the current vacancy as of the
2nd Quarter 2018 is 3.9% compared to 6.4%, from the previous quarter.
The 2nd quarter was very active with nearly 174,000 sq ft of positive net
absorption, easily outpacing new deliveries of 11,000 sq ft. The market
contains 6.67 million sq ft (451 buildings). There are three projects under
construction (24,080 sq ft). Current average asking rent is $15.57/sq ft,
full-service. Average asking rents have generally been fluctuating
between $15.00 and $15.65/sq ft over the past seven quarters.
Industrial Market: The counties industrial uses are primarily located in
Southeastern Pasco, north of the Columbia River and near the Tri-Cities
Airport. Kennewick Industrial Park, part of the Vista Field development
has also added a few light industrial buildings. The health of the
agricultural market also influences this sector and is currently showing
trends of growth. According to CoStar, there are 278 buildings totaling
7.39 million sq ft with a vacancy of 4.6% as of the 2nd quarter 2018, with
current blended asking rent of $0.51/sq ft. The vacancy rate is up 40
basis points from the prior quarter. CoStar indicates there are four
projects currently under construction (52,825 sq ft) and one project
(6,500 sq ft) was delivered during the quarter.
Retail Market: The region’s major retail areas are located near the
Columbia Center Mall in northwest Kennewick. Other retailers locating in
Kennewick during the past decade are the Colonnade Power Center,
Bed, Bath & Beyond Plaza, K-Mart Plaza, Target Plaza, Costco, Lowes
Hardware, Best Buy, and several other “big box” retailers. New retail
developments have been built in Richland north of I-182 near the new
Wal-Mart. Most of Pasco’s retail properties are located within two blocks
of US Hwy. 395/12. There is an outlet mall located north of I-182 and a
new neighborhood shopping with Lowes and Walmart just built near Rd.
68. According to CoStar, the market totals 11.84 million sq ft (776
buildings) with a vacancy rate of 4.0% as of the 2nd quarter 2018.
Vacancy has remained below 5% since the 3rd quarter of 2015. Average
Page 98 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services Addendum
triple net rent is currently $16.47/sq ft. Presently there 11 projects
totaling 122,488 sq ft under construction.
Conclusion Population growth, employment and economic growth continue to be
good. There are some concerns looking forward, such as potential
funding cuts from the Federal Government on the Hanford clean-up and
the bankruptcy of one of the local hospitals. Overall, though the market
has diversified and has been one of the better performing markets, the
region will likely continue to be prone to some swings in employment.
Page 99 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Addendum
Homeless Definitions
Page 100 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services Addendum
The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act
As amended by S. 896 The Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to
Housing (HEARTH) Act of 2009
SEC. 103. [42 USC 11302]. GENERAL DEFINITION OF HOMELESS INDIVIDUAL.
(a) In general - For purposes of this Act, the terms “homeless”, “homeless individual”, and
“homeless person” means
(1) an individual or family who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence;
(2) an individual or family with a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private
place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human
beings, including a car, park, abandoned building, bus or train station, airport, or camping
ground;
(3) an individual or family living in a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter
designated to provide temporary living arrangements (including hotels and motels paid for
by Federal, State, or local government programs for low-income individuals or by charitable
organizations, congregate shelters, and transitional housing);
(4) an individual who resided in a shelter or place not meant for human habitation and who
is exiting an institution where he or she temporarily resided;
(5) an individual or family who—
(A) will imminently lose their housing, including housing they own, rent, or live in
without paying rent, are sharing with others, and rooms in hotels or motels not paid
for by Federal, State, or local government programs for low-income individuals or
by charitable organizations, as evidenced by—
(i) a court order resulting from an eviction action that notifies the individual
or family that they must leave within 14 days;
(ii) the individual or family having a primary nighttime residence that is a
room in a hotel or motel and where they lack the resources necessary to
reside there for more than 14 days; or
(iii) credible evidence indicating that the owner or renter of the housing will
not allow the individual or family to stay for more than 14 days, and any oral
statement from an individual or family seeking homeless assistance that is
found to be credible shall be considered credible evidence for purposes of
this clause;
(B) has no subsequent residence identified; and
Page 101 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Addendum
(C) lacks the resources or support networks needed to obtain other permanent
housing; and
(6) unaccompanied youth and homeless families with children and youth defined as
homeless under other Federal statutes who—
(A) have experienced a long term period without living independently in permanent
housing,
(B) have experienced persistent instability as measured by frequent moves over
such period, and
(C) can be expected to continue in such status for an extended period of time
because of chronic disabilities, chronic physical health or mental health conditions,
substance addiction, histories of domestic violence or childhood abuse, the presence
of a child or youth with a disability, or multiple barriers to employment.
(b) DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND OTHER DANGEROUS OR LIFE-THREATENING
CONDITIONS.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the Secretary shall
consider to be homeless any individual or family who is fleeing, or is attempting to flee,
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or other dangerous or lifethreatening
conditions in the individual's or family's current housing situation, including where
the health and safety of children are jeopardized, and who have no other residence and lack the
resources or support networks to obtain other permanent housing.
(c) INCOME ELIGIBILITY.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—A homeless individual shall be eligible for assistance under any
program provided by this Act, only if the individual complies with the income eligibility
requirements otherwise applicable to such program.
(2) EXCEPTION.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a homeless individual shall be
eligible for assistance under title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998.
(d) EXCLUSION.—For purposes of this Act, the term “homeless” or “homeless individual” does
not include any individual imprisoned or otherwise detained pursuant to an Act of the Congress
or a State law.
(e) PERSONS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS.—Any references in this Act to homeless
individuals (including homeless persons) or homeless groups (including homeless persons) shall
be considered to include, and to refer to, individuals experiencing homelessness or groups
experiencing homelessness, respectively.
Page 102 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services
Addendum
Section 725(2) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act.
The term homeless children and youths'—
(A) means individuals who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence (within
the meaning of section 103(a)(1)); and
(B) includes—
(i) children and youths who are sharing the housing of other persons due to loss
of housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason; are living in motels,
hotels, trailer parks, or camping grounds due to the lack of alternative
adequate accommodations; are living in emergency or transitional shelters;
are abandoned in hospitals; or are awaiting foster care placement;
(ii) children and youths who have a primary nighttime residence that is a public
or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping
accommodation for human beings (within the meaning of section
103(a)(2)(C));
(iii) children and youths who are living in cars, parks, public spaces, abandoned
buildings, substandard housing, bus or train stations, or similar settings; and
(iv) migratory children (as such term is defined in section 1309 of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965) who qualify as homeless for the
purposes of this subtitle because the children are living in circumstances
described in clauses (i) through (iii).
Page 103 of 147
Homeless Housing Needs Analysis
KM Job A18-0762
Kidder Mathews
Valuation Advisory Services Addendum
Appraiser’s Experience
Page 104 of 147
kiddermathews.com
Jeremy Streufert, MAI
Senior Vice President
Valuation Advisory Services
CAREER SUMMARY
Jeremy Streufert has been actively engaged in the appraisal of real estate since joining Kidder
Mathews in 2001. Jeremy’s experience includes appraisals, market studies, and feasibility
analysis on a variety of property types with a focus on the multifamily market including
conventional market rate rental housing and the affordable housing sector. Affordable
housing experience includes appraisals and market studies involving the low income housing
tax credit program, HUD subsidized housing, public housing and other affordable housing
programs. Areas of experience include work in Washington, Oregon and Idaho.
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science, Civil Engineering, Washington State University (1999)
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
MAI designation - Appraisal Institute (2016)
PROFESSIONAL LICENSES
• State of Washington - Certified General Real Estate Appraiser (No. 1101799)
• State of Oregon - Certified General Real Estate Appraiser (No. C001007)
• State of Idaho - Certified General Real Estate Appraiser (No. CGA-3816)
601 Union St, Suite 4720
Seattle, WA 98101
T 206.205.0203
F 206.205.0220
jeremys@kiddermathews.com
Page 105 of 147
kiddermathews.com
Jeremy Streufert, MAI continued
PARTIAL CLIENT LIST
Bank of America
CBRE HMF, Inc.
Centennial Mortgage, Inc.
Citibank
Columbia Bank
JPMorgan Chase
Mountain West Bank
US Bank
Walker & Dunlop
Bremerton Housing Authority
Everett Housing Authority
King County Housing Authority
Peninsula Housing Authority
Pierce Transit
Seattle Housing Authority
Tacoma Housing Authority
US Department of HUD
Vancouver Housing Authority
Bellwether Housing
Inland Group
JH Brawner & Company
Low Income Housing Institute
Pacific Northern Construction
Company, Inc.
Shelter Resources
Vintage Housing
Whitewater Creek Inc.
Corporations/Owners/
Developers Financial Institutions
Government/Housing
Authorities
Page 106 of 147
Page 107 of 147
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council July 1, 2019
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 7/8/19
FROM: Rick White, Director
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: PSD 2018 Capital Facility Plan Update and Impact Fee Report
I. REFERENCE(S):
PowerPoint Presentation
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
City Council, in March of 2012, adopted Ordinance 4046 which established school
impact fees. An Interlocal Agreement for implementation and processing of those fees
was also approved by both the District and the City. The current impact fees
established by Council through Ordinance 4046 are $4,700 (of this amount $17 is
retained by the City for offsetting administrative costs) per single family unit and
$4,525 per multi-family unit.
The terms of the Interlocal Agreement between the District and the City require the
City to review and consider biennial updates of the District’s CFP and if appropriate,
incorporate the updated CFP into our own capital facilities element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
City Council considered the District's 2018 CFP update at the Workshop Meeting of
May 14, 2018, a Regular Council meeting of May 21, 2018 and a Workshop Meeting
of June 10, 2019. At the June 2018 Workshop/Regular meetings and the June 2019
Workshop, there was discussion relating to County - issued building permits and the
relationship to the School Impact Fee. The District has yet to collect school impact fees
from County developments but has implemented a strategy to do so based on the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
Page 108 of 147
Since May of last year, County - issued building permits for new homes outside the
City limits but within the PSD has dramatically fallen off and there is no empirical
evidence to support the success of the District's efforts to collect impact fees through
SEPA. City staff has since established conditions relating to use and extension of City
water that include payment of applicable impact fees and conformance with City
development regulations in a variety of circumstances.
V. DISCUSSION:
Since the initial Capital Facility update in May of 2018 has not yet resulted in
incorporation into the City Comprehensive Plan, the District will be requesting that
Council consider a District Capital Facility update for the years 2019 and 2020.
The District would also like to take the opportunity at the July 8 Workshop to brief
Council on the calculation of the fee formula and the details of the District's legal
strategy for obtaining school impact fees through the SEPA process.
The District is precluded from using school impact fees for projects t hat are not
included as a part of the capital facilities element of an adopted Comprehensive Plan.
In this case, the District’s 2018 CFP includes a fourth high school as a growth-related
project and the District is hoping to use impact fee revenue to pay for a portion of this
project (including a current need to pay for site studies relating to school development
of the PSD property on Burns RD).
Although the District's protocol for seeking school mitigation fees under SEPA outside
the City limits has not been squarely tested, City staff believes that the District’s
strategic use of SEPA and the current process of conditioning extension of City
utilities, guarantee that applicable mitigation fees will be paid for residential
development within the District.
The District will provide Council an updated presentation and be available for
questions.
Page 109 of 147
2018 Pasco School District
Capital Facilities Plan Update
Presentation to the Pasco City Council
July 8, 2019
Page 110 of 147
Purpose & Background
•Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) provides a basis for school
impact fees
•GMA requires that, to collect school impact fees, the local
jurisdiction must adopt the District’s CFP by reference into the
jurisdiction’s Comprehensive Plan
•PSD first adopted a CFP in 2011 following a
recommendation from community summit
•City of Pasco in 2012 adopted a school impact fee
ordinance
•CFP is updated every two years
•2016 Update —no change to fee amount
•2018 Update (presented in May 2018) —no requested change to
fee amountPage 111 of 147
Components of District CFP
Educational
Program
Standards
Capital Facilities
Inventory
Enrollment
Projections &
Capacity Analysis
Financing Plan
School Impact or
Mitigation FeesPage 112 of 147
Enrollment Projections
and Capacity
•Enrollment has grown by more than 2,100
students (or nearly 8%) since 2012
•Enrollment forecast projects student
enrollment will grow by almost 3,000 student
by 2023
•Enrollment has grown on average over 400
students each year during the last 5 years
•Growth is occurring at all grade levels Page 113 of 147
•Two New Elementary Schools
•New Middle School & Stevens MS Expansion
•High School*
•Portable adjustments
•Land acquisition
*Subject to future bond
Capacity Planning to Serve Growth
Page 114 of 147
School Impact Fee Parameters
•One time charge on new residential development to address
capacity needs created by new residential growth
•May only be used to fund capacity projects included within
the CFP adopted as a part of a jurisdiction’s Comprehensive
Plan
•Cannot be the sole source of funding
•Must be expended within 10 years
•Fees calculated based on a recognized formula developed
consistent with GMA requirements
Page 115 of 147
School Impact Fee Formula
•Uses growth-related facilities needs and costs identified in the CFP
•Identifies a “per dwelling unit” share to ensure that only a portion of
the cost to build schools is allocated to new housing
–A “student generation rate,” which is an actual measure of the
number of new students residing in new units, identifies the
proportionate impact of a new dwelling unit on school facilities
•Include a credit for state funds that the District anticipates receiving
toward the capacity project
•Includes a credit for the taxes that the new homeowner will pay in
the future toward the same capacity improvement
•Automatic discount of the calculated fee, after credits are applied, of
25% per the City of Pasco Ordinance
–Additional District-discretionary discount reduces the fee furtherPage 116 of 147
Page 117 of 147
2018 CFP and School Impact Fees
Proposed Impact Fees
$4,700 for single homes
$4,525 for multi-family units
Page 118 of 147
2019 CFP Update
•City ordinance requires District to submit an
updated CFP at least once every two years
•District submitted the 2018 CFP in May 2018
•District to prepare 2019 CFP update with the
request that the City consider that update in the
fall of 2019
Page 119 of 147
School Impact Fees
vs. Mitigation Fees
Impact Fees Mitigation Fees
Authority Growth Management Act State Environmental Policy Act
PSD Jurisdictions
(in control of
jurisdiction)
City of Pasco Franklin County
Applicability All residential units Only non-SEPA exempt
developments for which a
condition is secured through
the SEPA process
Page 120 of 147
Efforts to Collect Mitigation Fees in
Unincorporated Area
•Franklin County did not agree to the District’s
renewed request to collect GMA school impact
fees in 2016
•District’s only avenue for seeking school
mitigation for residential development in the
County is through the State Environmental Policy
Act
•District efforts to collect SEPA mitigation fees
prior to 2016 were unsuccessful
Page 121 of 147
Efforts in Unincorporated Area
•2017: District revised its procedures related to
seeking SEPA mitigation
•District monitors SEPA notices from Franklin County
and provides comments/appeals
•All non-exempt residential projects since that time
subject to recorded School Mitigation Agreements
–SEPA-exempt development: District has no avenue for
seeking school mitigation
•City provides additional support through City’s water
connection requirements
Page 122 of 147
Page 123 of 147
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council July 2, 2019
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager
Rick White, Director
Community & Economic Development
Workshop Meeting: 7/8/19
FROM: Darcy Bourcier, Planner I
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Code Amendment: Minimum Lot Size & Frontage in Zones R-2 through R-4
I. REFERENCE(S):
Proposed Ordinance
Memo to Planning Commission Dated: 6/20/2019
Planning Commission Minutes Dated: 3/21/2019, 5/16/2019 and 6/20/2019
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
None
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
The PMC states that for lots under 10,000 square feet in size, the minimum lot frontage
is to be 60 feet. This provision includes zones R-1 (Low Density Residential) through
R-4 (High Density Residential), which each have their own designated minimum lot
size requirement. However, the minimum lot frontage of 60 feet is a requirement
regardless of the minimum lot size.
Interest has also been expressed to more closely match the minimum lot size with
frontage requirements and generally provide an overall decrease in the minimum lot
sizes in the R-2; R-3 and R-4 zoning districts in order to prevent the potential creation
of irregular or long, narrow lots.
In the interest of creating additional lots for new dwellings in Pasco, the proposed
amendment of the PMC would decrease the minimum frontage and minimum lot size
Page 124 of 147
in zones R-2 through R-4.
The Planning Commission has considered this proposal in several workshops and in a
public hearing, has concluded that the proposal will increase the opportunity to provide
additional housing opportunities and has forwarded a recommendation of approval to
City Council.
V. DISCUSSION:
The proposed ordinance provides the following revisions to the Zoning Code:
R-2 (Medium Density):
• Decrease minimum lot frontage from 60 to 50 feet
• Decrease minimum lot size from 6,000 to 5,000 square feet (single family
dwellings)
• Decrease minimum lot size from 5,000 to 4,000 square feet (multi-family
dwellings)
R-3 (Medium Density):
• Decrease minimum lot frontage from 60 to 50 feet
• Decrease minimum lot size from 5,500 to 4,500 square feet (single family
dwellings)
R-4 (High Density):
• Decrease minimum lot frontage from 60 to 50 feet
• Decrease minimum lot size from 5,000 to 4,000 square feet (single family
dwellings)
Verbiage for the allowance of zero-lot-line (common wall) platting in R-3 and R-4
zones has also been included in the attached Ordinance.
City Council discussion and direction on the proposed ordinance is requested.
Page 125 of 147
ORDINANCE NO._____
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PMC CHAPTER 21 (SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS) AND
25 (ZONING) TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND FROTANGE
REQUIREMENTS IN CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS.
WHEREAS, the development and approval of plats within the State of Washington are
governed by RCW 58.17; and,
WHEREAS, local subdivision regulations including the City of Pasco subdivision
regulations within Title 21 of the Pasco Municipal must conform to RCW 58.17; and,
WHEREAS, the PMC currently states that parcels under 10,000 square feet in size must
have at least 60 feet of street right-of-way frontage; and,
WHEREAS, interest has been expressed to decrease the minimum lot size and frontage
requirements in certain residential zones; and,
WHEREAS, decreasing the minimum lot size and frontage in certain residential zones
would increase housing density to allow for more homes to be constructed to help accommodate
Pasco’s growing population; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed revisions have been considered by the Pasco Planning
Commission at a public hearing and the Commission has recommended City Council approve the
revisions; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That section 21.20.040 of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is
amended and shall read as follows:
21.20.040 MINIMUM LOT DIMENSIONS. Lot areas shall conform to the requirements
of PMC Title 25.
(1) Width and Depth.
(a) Lot depth exceeding two and one-half times the lot width shall be avoided.
(2) Frontage. A minimum frontage area for each lot shall be required as follows:
(a) Lots in the R-1, R-1-A, and R-1-A2 zoning districts with less than 10,000 square
feet in area shall have a minimum frontage of 60 feet except lots fronting on cul-de-
sacs, which shall have a minimum frontage of 35 feet and a width of 50 feet or more at
the setback line;
(b) Lots in the R-2, R-3, and R-4 zoning districts with less than 10,000 square feet in
area shall have a minimum frontage of 50 feet except lots fronting on cul-de-sacs,
which shall have a minimum frontage of 35 feet and a width of 50 feet or more at the
Page 126 of 147
setback line; and except lots that are part of zero-lot-line developments, which shall
have a minimum frontage of 30 feet;
(c) Lots with more than 10,000 square feet in area shall have a minimum frontage of
90 feet except lots fronting on cul-de-sacs, which shall have a minimum frontage of 35
feet and a width of 50 feet or more at the setback line.
(3) In no case shall a residential lot contain less than 5,000 4,000 square feet of lot area
unless the lot is approved by the City through the planned unit development or planned
density development process., or if the lot is part of a zero-lot-line development.
(4) In subdivisions where septic tanks or other individual sewage disposal devices are to
be installed, the size of lots shall be subject to the approval of the Benton/Franklin Health
District, but by no means shall be smaller in size than the applicable zoning district in
which the lot is located. [Ord. 3398 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 26.16.040.]
Section 2. That section 25.60.050 of the Pasco Municipal Code (R-2 Medium Density
Residential) shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
25.60.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
(1) Minimum lot area: 6,000 5,000 square feet;
(2) One single-family dwelling shall be permitted per lot. Multiple dwellings shall be
permitted based on the density standards in PMC 25.60.050(3);
(3) Density: One dwelling per 6,000 5,000 square feet of lot area for single-family
dwellings and 5,000 4,000 square feet of lot area for multiple-family dwellings except
as provided in PMC 25.60.030(8);
(4) Maximum lot coverage: 40 percent;
(5) Minimum Yard Setbacks.
(a) Front: 20 feet;
(b) Side: five feet;
(c) Rear: Principal building: Equal to the height of the dwelling;
Accessory structures: Accessory structures adjacent an alley may be placed on the alley
line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Garages with
vehicle doors parallel to an alley shall be set back from the alley 20 feet. Where there
is no alley the setback shall be five feet. Structures related to rabbits and/or chicken
hens, such as rabbit hutches and/or chicken coops, must be at least 10 feet from any
property line, may not exceed six feet in height and 30 square feet in size, and must be
located behind the rear line of the dwelling. Rabbit hutches and/or chicken coops
adjacent an alley may be placed within five feet of the alley line provided there are no
openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Property owners shall not allow such
structures to become a nuisance due to noise or odor.
(6) Maximum Building Height.
Page 127 of 147
(a) Principal building: 25 feet, except a greater height may be approved by special
permit;
(b) Accessory buildings: 15 feet;
(7) Fences and hedges: See Chapter 25.180 PMC;
(8) Parking: See Chapter 25.185 PMC;
(9) Landscaping: See Chapter 25.180 PMC; and
(10) Residential design standards: See PMC 25.165.100. [Ord. 4110 § 14, 2013; Ord.
4040 § 7, 2012; Ord. 4036 § 15, 2011; Ord. 3731 § 14, 2005; Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999;
Code 1970 § 25.34.050.]
Section 3. That section 25.65.050 of the Pasco Municipal Code (R-3 Medium Density
Residential) shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
25.65.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
(1) Minimum lot area: 5,500 4,500 square feet;
(2) One single-family dwelling shall be permitted per lot. Multiple dwellings shall be
permitted based on the density standards in PMC 25.65.050(3);
One dwelling unit per 5,500 4,500 square feet of lot area for single-family dwellings and
3,000 square feet of lot area for multiple-family dwellings and dwellings part of zero-lot-
line developments except as provided in PMC 25.60.030(8);
(4) Maximum lot coverage: 60 percent;
(5) Minimum Yard Setbacks.
(a) Front: 20 feet;
(b) Side: Five feet;, except in zero-lot-line developments in which case no side yard
setback is required from the common lot line(s), provided the remaining side yard is at
least 10 feet;
(c) Rear. Principal building: Equal to the height of the dwelling;
Accessory structures: Accessory structures adjacent an alley may be placed on the alley
line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Garages with
vehicle doors parallel to an alley shall be set back from the alley 20 feet. Where there
is no alley, the setback shall be five feet. Structures related to rabbits and/or chicken
hens, such as rabbit hutches and/or chicken coops, must be at least 10 feet from any
property line, may not exceed six feet in height and 30 square feet in size, and must be
located behind the rear line of the dwelling. Rabbit hutches and/or chicken coops
adjacent an alley may be placed within five feet of the alley line provided there are no
openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Property owners shall not allow such
structures to become a nuisance due to noise or odor.
(6) Maximum Building Height.
Page 128 of 147
(a) Principal building: 35 feet, except a greater height may be approved by special
permit;
(b) Accessory buildings: 15 feet;
(7) Fences and hedges: See Chapter 25.180 PMC;
(8) Parking: See Chapter 25.185 PMC; and
(9) Landscaping: See Chapter 25.180 PMC;
(10) Residential design standards: See PMC 25.165.100. [Ord. 4110 § 15, 2013; Ord.
4040 § 8, 2012; Ord. 4036 § 17, 2011; Ord. 3731 § 16, 2005; Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code
1970 § 25.36.050.]
Section 4. That section 25.70.050 of the Pasco Municipal Code (R-4 High Density
Residential) shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
25.70.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
(1) Minimum lot area: 5,000 4,000 square feet;
(2) One single-family dwelling shall be permitted per lot. Multiple dwellings shall be
permitted based on the density standards in PMC 25.70.050(3);
(3) Density: One dwelling unit per 5,000 4,000 square feet of lot area for single-family
dwellings and 1,500 square feet of lot area for multiple-family dwellings and dwellings part of
zero-lot-line developments;
(4) Lot coverage: 60 percent;
(5) Minimum Yard Setbacks.
(a) Front: 20 feet;
(b) Side: Five feet;, except in zero-lot-line developments in which case no side yard
setback is required from the common lot line(s), provided the remaining side yard is at
least 10 feet;
(c) Rear: Principal building: Equal to the height of the dwelling;
Accessory structures: Accessory structures adjacent an alley may be placed on the alley
line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Garages with
vehicle doors parallel to an alley shall be set back from the alley 20 feet. Where there
is no alley, the setback shall be five feet. Structures related to rabbits and/or chicken
hens, such as rabbit hutches and/or chicken coops, must be at least 10 feet from any
property line, may not exceed six feet in height and 30 square feet in size, and must be
located behind the rear line of the dwelling. Rabbit hutches and/or chicken coops
adjacent an alley may be placed within five feet of the alley line provided there are no
openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Property owners shall not allow such
structures to become a nuisance due to noise or odor.
(6) Maximum Building Height.
Page 129 of 147
(a) Principal building: 35 feet, except a greater height may be approved by special
permit;
(b) Accessory buildings: 15 feet;
(7) Fences and hedges: See Chapter 25.180 PMC;
(8) Parking: See Chapter 25.185 PMC;
(9) Landscaping: See Chapter 25.180 PMC; and
(10) Residential design standards: See PMC 25.165.100. [Ord. 4110 § 16, 2013; Ord.
4040 § 9, 2012; Ord. 4036 § 19, 2011; Ord. 3731 § 18, 2005; Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code
1970 § 25.38.050.]
Section 5. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after passage and
publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as provided
by law this ____ day of _________________, 2019.
______________________________
Matt Watkins
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Kerr Law Group
Page 130 of 147
MEMO TO PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers
THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 2019
7:00 PM
1
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Darcy Bourcier, Planner I
SUBJECT: Minimum Lot Size and Frontage in Residential Zones (MF# CA 2017-009)
Introduction
The PMC states that for lots under 10,000 square feet in size, the minimum lot frontage is to be 60
feet. This provision includes zones R-1 (Low Density Residential) through R-4 (High Density
Residential), which each have their own designated minimum lot size requirement (see table 1).
However, interest has been expressed to decrease the minimum lot frontage for these residential
zones. To illustrate, a property may be zoned R-1 which allows for a minimum lot area of 7,200
square feet and a minimum frontage of 60 feet. If one was to seek a rezone of the property from R-
1 to R-2—which would decrease the minimum lot size to 6,000 square feet—the minimum frontage
would remain 60 feet. In the interest of creating additional lots for new dwellings in Pasco, the City
is proposing the amendment of the Zoning Code to decrease the minimum frontage from 60 feet to
50 feet for zones R-2 through R-4. By doing so, the resulting increase in lot density would allow for
more homes to be constructed to help accommodate Pasco’s growing population.
Considering the above information, staff is also entertaining the idea of decreasing minimum lot size
accordingly. Should the minimum frontage decrease while the minimum lot size remains
unchanged, there is a concern regarding the possibility of disproportionately-sized lots. Therefore,
staff proposes revisions to minimum lot size in zoning districts R-2, R-3, and R-4, and seeks the
Planning Commission’s input on modifying the Zoning Code in order to accommodate builders and
developers in their effort to offer diverse residential properties at affordable prices while avoiding
facilitating the creation of impractical or awkward lots.
The R-2, R-3 and R-4 zoning districts allow for the development of single-family dwellings and
multiple family structures such as duplexes, fourplexes and apartment buildings. Although
established to allow multiple dwelling units on a single lot, the multi-family zoning districts can be a
source of single family homes on smaller lots. Below is a table detailing Pasco’s current zoning
standards regarding single family dwellings in low-to-high density residential zones.
Table 1
Pasco (current standard)
Min Lot Size
(sq. ft.)
Min Lot Frontage
(ft.)
Low Density (R-1) 7,200 60
Med Density (R-2) 6,000 60
Med Density (R-3) 5,500 60
High Density (R-4) 5,000 60
Page 131 of 147
2
Background
The City of Pasco created the R-2 and R-3 zoning districts in 1965 in which no lot within those two
districts could be smaller than 50 by 100 feet (5,000 square feet). This minimum lot size has been in
the code in one form or another since 1965.
Much of the original portions of Pasco were platted prior to the establishment of zoning. The general
practice for platting in the early years was to divide blocks into 25-foot wide lots. Builders would
then buy two or more lots to build houses or commercial buildings. As a result it is not uncommon
to find single-family lots close to or below 5,000 square feet in size in older areas of town. The
smallest lots in central Pasco between the High school and Sylvester Park (zoned R-1) are 4,750
square feet. The smallest lots south of “A” Street are just over 4,600 square feet; some contain 5,250
square feet and others are slightly larger at 5,400 square feet.
Zoning Comparisons
Kennewick and Richland both permit individual lots in their version of the R-2 and R-3 zones with a
minimum of 4,000 square feet. The following tables show the minimum lot size and frontage
standards for single family dwellings in Pasco’s neighboring cities.
Table 2
Kennewick
Min Lot Size
(sq. ft.)
Min Lot Frontage
(ft.)
Min Lot Width*
(ft.)
Suburban (RS) 10,500 30 60
Low Density (RL) 7,500 30 60
Med Density (RM) 4,000 30 50
High Density (RH) 4,000 30 N/A
* Measured at front setback line
Table 3
Richland
Min Lot Size
(sq. ft.)
Min Lot Frontage
(ft.)
Single Family Res (R-1-12) 10,000 90
Single Family Res (R-1-10) 8,000 70
Med Density (R-2) 6,000 50
Med Density Small (R-2S) 4,000 42
Multi Family (R-3) 4,000 42
Previous Code Amendments
In 2014 a developer applied for R-2 zoning with the intent of building only single-family homes.
Although most of the lots in the proposed development were in excess of 6,000 square feet the
Page 132 of 147
3
potential was there for a development with numerous 5,000 square foot lots. The creation of 5,000
square foot single-family lots without forethought to building design and subdivision integration
with existing and adjacent neighborhoods had the potential to impact those neighboring
developments. As a result, the Planning Commission was asked to provide some input on the matter
as to whether or not the multi-family zoning districts should be reviewed as it related lot sizes. Later
that year the City Council passed Ordinance 4173 to amend PMC Title 25 to increase the minimum
lot size from 5,000 to 6,000 square feet in the R-2 zoning district and 5,000 to 5,500 square feet in
the R-3 zoning district.
It can be argued, then, that reverting back to smaller minimum lot sizes in the medium-to-high
density residential zoning districts would essentially negate what Ordinance 4173 had
accomplished. Once a developer goes through the process to obtain multi-family zoning he does not
usually diminish his potential return by building single-family homes.
Options
Because the Planning Commission indicated that the minimum lot frontage and size requirements
of the R-1 zoning district should remain as they are, staff has updated the proposed standard
accordingly (see table 4).
Option #1: The proposed changes have been highlighted below.
Table 4
Pasco (proposed standard)
Min Lot Size
(sq. ft.)
Min Lot Frontage
(ft.)
Low Density (R-1) 7,200 60
Med Density (R-2) 5,000 50
Med Density (R-3) 4,500 50
High Density (R-4) 4,000 50
Option #2: Some other variation of Option #1.
Option #3: Maintain the current standard.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION for Recommendation: I move the Planning Commission recommend to City
Council the adoption of the proposed amendment as contained in the June 20, 2019 Planning
Commission memo.
Page 133 of 147
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers
THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 2019
7:00 PM
Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 March 21, 2019
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
F. Code Amendment Minimum Lot Size and Frontage in Residential Zones (MF# CA
2017-009)
Chairperson Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Darcy Bourcier, Planner I, discussed the proposed code amendment for minimum lot size and frontage in
residential zones. Staff has suggested decreasing the minimum lot frontages in zones R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4
from 60 feet to 50 feet and reducing minimum lot sizes to meet the need for increased density. Verbiage
was also proposed to allow for zero lot line developments in R-3 and R-4 zones. Staff did not propose
minimum lot sizes for the R-1 zone at this time but staff requested input from the Planning Commission.
There was discussion between the Planning Commissioner’s and staff regarding the details of the proposed
code amendment pertaining to minimum lot sizes and lot frontage, making land more affordable and
increasing density.
Tim Snider, 5918 Rio Grande Lane, discussed his concerns about minimum lot frontages and setbacks and
what that would do for future developers who may be limited to rectangular single-family homes.
The Commissioner’s discussed with staff the concerns and questions Mr. Snider proposed.
Commissioner Mendez moved, seconded by Commissioner A. Campos, to continue the public hearing on the
code amendment to a later date to be determined. The motion passed unanimously.
Page 134 of 147
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers
THURSDAY, MAY 16, 2019
7:00 PM
Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 May 16, 2019
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
B. Code Amendment Code Amendment for Minimum Lot Sizes (MF# CA 2017-009) –
Continued from a previous meeting
Chairperson Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Darcy Bourcier, Planner I, discussed the code amendment for minimum lot sizes. In March 2019, the Planning
Commission was in agreement to leave the R-1 zoning district at 7,200 square foot minimum lot sizes and 60’
of frontage. Proposed revisions were to R-2 (5,000 sqft. minimum), R-3 (4,500 sqft. minimum) and R-4 (4,000
sqft. minimum) to change them to 50’ lot frontages.
There was discussion between Staff and Commissioners regarding the revisions, ensuring the minimum lot
sizes and frontages were proportionate, and minimum frontages in neighboring cities compared to the
proposed lot frontages for Pasco.
Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Myhrum, to close the public hearing on the
proposed code amendment and set June 20, 2019 as the date for deliberations and the development of a
recommendation for the City Council. The motion passed unanimously.
Page 135 of 147
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers
THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 2019
7:00 PM
Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 June 20, 2019
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Code Amendment Code Amendment for Minimum Lot Sizes (MF# CA 2017-009)
Chairperson Myhrum read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Darcy Bourcier, Planner I, discussed the code amendment for minimum lot sizes. Staff did not have further
discussion to add since previous meetings.
Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Mendez, the Planning Commission recommend
to City Council the adoption of the proposed amendment relating to minimum lot sizes as contained in the
June 20, 219 Planning Commission Memo. The motion passed unanimously.
Page 136 of 147
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council July 10, 2019
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 7/8/19
FROM: Angela Pashon, City Clerk
Administrative & Community Services
SUBJECT: Housekeeping Ordinances - Criminal Offenses
I. REFERENCE(S):
Ordinance - Simple Assault
Ordinance - Police Department Unmarked Vehicles
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
The City Attorney and City Prosecutor have noted two areas of the Pasco Municipal
Code (PMC) where revisions are recommended in portions of the City Code.
A summary of the proposed ordinances are as follows:
Simple Assault: This ordinance amends the criminal code provisions by defining the
crime of simple assault to allow for better enforcement.
Police Department Unmarked Vehicles: This ordinance creates PMC Chapter 10.95 to
allow the Police Department to use unmarked police vehicles for general undercover
purposes or other purposes, and to allow the same to stop drivers operating motor
vehicles.
Staff recommends approval of the ordinances.
V. DISCUSSION:
Page 137 of 147
Ordinance Amending
PMC 9.15.030 - 1
ORDINANCE NO. ______
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington,
Amending PMC Section 9.15.030 “Simple Assault”
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pasco has received recommendation from
its criminal prosecuting attorney regarding Code amendments needed under the Pasco Municipal
Code section defining the crime of simple assault; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pasco has recognized the need to amend its
criminal code provisions defining the crime of simple assault to allow for better enforcement.
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.That Section 9.15.030 of the Pasco Municipal Code entitled “Simple
Assault” shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
9.15.030 SIMPLE ASSAULT.
(1) No person may willfully use, or threaten to use by purposeful words or act,
unlawful physical force against the person of another.
(a) The definition of “use of force” shall be that force as defined under RCW
9A.16.020.
(2) Any defense available to a person charged with the crime of assault in the fourth
degree under RCW 9A.36.041 shall also be a defense to the crime of simple assault under this
section;
(3) Any crime charged under this section shall be a gross misdemeanor. [Ord. 3484
§2, 2001; Code 1970 § 9.06.030.]
Section 2. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its
approval, passage and publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as
provided by law this ____ day of _________________, 2019.
__________________________________
Matt Watkins, Mayor
Page 138 of 147
Ordinance Amending
PMC 9.15.030 - 2
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________ __________________________________
Angela Pashon, Interim City Clerk Kerr Ferguson Law, PLLC, City Attorney
Page 139 of 147
Ordinance – Creating PMC 10.95
ORDINANCE NO. ______
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington,
Creating a new Pasco Municipal Code Chapter 10.95 “Police
Department Unmarked Vehicles”
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pasco considers unmarked police vehicles to
be a useful resource for policing and the maintenance of public health and safety; and
WHEREAS, Section 46.08.065(1) of the Revised Code of Washington allows local
police departments to use unmarked police vehicles for special undercover or confidential
investigative purposes;
WHEREAS, Section 46.08.065(1) of the Revised Code of Washington also allows cities
to, by rule or Ordinance, provide for exceptions to the requirements in Section 46.08.065(3) of
the Revised Code of Washington regarding marking of publicly owned vehicles for general
undercover purposes and other purposes; and
WHEREAS, the Pasco Municipal Code does not currently provide for exceptions to the
marking requirements for public owned vehicles in Section 46.08.065(3); and
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco regulates vehicles and traffic in Title 10 of the Pasco
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pasco desires to amend Title 10 of the Pasco
Municipal Code to allow the Police Department to use unmarked police vehicles for general
undercover purposes or other purposes, and to allow the same to stop drivers operating motor
vehicles; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That a new Chapter 10.95 entitled “Police Department Unmarked
Vehicles” of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is enacted and which shall read as
follows:
Chapter 10.95
POLICE DEPARTMENT UNMARKED VEHICLES
Sections:
10.95.010 Definition.
10.95.020 Use of Unmarked Vehicles Generally.
Page 140 of 147
Ordinance – Creating PMC 10.95
10.95.010 Definition. “Unmarked vehicle” means a motor vehicle that does not
conform with the vehicle marking requirements of RCW 46.08.065(1). It does not include any
motorcycle, vehicle over 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, or other vehicle that for structural
reasons cannot be marked as required by RCW 46.08.065(1)-(2) that is owned or controlled by
the City and used for public purposes on the public highways of this State.
10.95.020 Use of Unmarked Vehicles Generally. The Police Department of the City
may own, use, operate, and maintain unmarked vehicles for general undercover or confidential
investigative purposes, traffic control vehicles, law enforcement, confidential public health work,
and public assistance fraud or child support investigative purposes.
Section 2. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its
approval, passage and publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as
provided by law this ____ day of _________________, 2019.
__________________________________
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________ __________________________________
Angela Pashon, Interim, City Clerk Kerr Ferguson Law PLLC, City Attorney
Page 141 of 147
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council July 4, 2019
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 7/8/19
FROM: Zach Ratkai, Director
Administrative & Community Services
SUBJECT: Pasco Multi-Modal Update
I. REFERENCE(S):
PowerPoint Presentation
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
The Pasco Multi-Modal Transportation Facility was constructed in 1998 and has been
serving as the hub for surface transportation for the Tri -Cities region. Amtrak,
Greyhound, and Misioneros Bus Line have tenancy in the facility and continue to
provide service through long-term contracts with the City of Pasco. In 2018, the ACS
Department renovated the restrooms in the facility and continually works to ensure the
building is sound and secure.
V. DISCUSSION:
Presentation and Update from Staff
Page 142 of 147
Pasco Multi-
Modal
FacilityPage 143 of 147
Multi-Modal
Built in 1998
Funded by:
-Federal Funding
-STIP
-City Funds
-BFT
Annual Funding:
-General Fund
Page 144 of 147
Multi-Modal
Primary Tenants:
-Amtrak Empire Builder
-Greyhound Bus
-Misioneros Bus Line
Year 2016 2017 2018
Total Riders 23,198 24,245 22,711
Year -to-Year --1,047 (1,534) Page 145 of 147
Multi-Modal
2019 Budget:
Revenue: $189,363 Expense: $67,450
Recent Improvements: Renovated restrooms, new paint in 2018
Page 146 of 147
Multi-Modal
FUTURE:
-Continued level of service
-Provision of Security
-Tenant Relations
-Promotion
Old Train Station –1977 (Demo in 2009)Page 147 of 147