Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Plan subcommittee revises economic‑development chapter; members press for clearer tools on vacant land and incentives
Summary
Subcommittee reviewed updates to the economic development chapter, discussed limits imposed by state law, additions for creative economy and tourism, and debated stronger wording to target vacant/underutilized properties, revenue tools and infrastructure prioritization; no formal actions were taken.
City planning staff presented a revised economic‑development chapter to the Plan Commission subcommittee on July 15, emphasizing updated goals for the creative economy and tourism, and refining policies to reflect state legal limits and modern economic tools; the subcommittee discussed but did not adopt specific new measures.
Staff said the rewrite aims to bring the chapter up to date with technology, clarify the city’s practical authorities under state law and broaden policies so they allow multiple solutions. The presenter noted that some policies were moved or deleted where they duplicated land‑use goals, and that the chapter now includes a new goal on the creative economy and an explicit reference to tourism and recreation as economic drivers.
Members focused discussion on several implementation issues. They urged clearer policy language and stronger tools for dealing with vacant and underutilized parcels, including enforcement of existing minimum‑maintenance and vacant‑property codes and the possibility of incentives for façade and site improvements. Committee participants argued that property maintenance and redevelopment have strong localized economic impacts and that a mix of “carrots and sticks” is needed to spur reinvestment in long‑neglected corridors such as Division Street.
Members also discussed the city’s limited ability to change state tax law but asked staff to reword a policy that previously referenced lobbying for state tax changes. Staff proposed language to direct the city to “support state and federal legislative priorities that promote or expand access” rather than implying the city would lead state lobbying efforts. Several members supported wording that would allow the city to identify opportunities to coordinate with state groups and regional partners.
The group debated whether language should be strengthened (for example, by substituting “require” for “encourage”) in several places, while recognizing legal and political limits. Staff repeated that some policy strength must reflect what the city can legally require under state law and that some items need further cross‑reference with other chapters and technical studies, including a five‑year look‑back analysis staff must perform under state requirements.
Other topics discussed included: whether the economic‑development chapter should identify priority business sectors or keep a broad recruitment stance; supporting living‑wage jobs and workforce training with clearer definitions of “post‑secondary” or job‑training partners; incentives to retain and expand local and regional businesses; and a proposal to integrate targeted investment criteria to avoid perpetuating historic underinvestment. Staff noted existing tools such as TIF (tax‑increment financing) implemented in prior projects (for example, the Lehi Quadrant TIF) and said future policy language will better align incentives with the capital‑investment matrix and centers policy in other chapters.
No formal motions were made and the subcommittee did not vote. Staff said the chapter text will be revised to reflect the requested clarifications and cross‑references before being posted to planspokane.org for broader public review and will be circulated to advisory bodies including the Arts Commission and Landmarks Commission for comment.
