Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Spokane steering committee to hold May hearing after confusion over state housing‑allocation tool
Loading...
Summary
After weeks of confusion about whether the state HAPT tool should use population or housing inputs, the Spokane steering committee voted to schedule a public hearing in May to consider a corrected housing‑allocation table and related resolution so jurisdictions can proceed with comp plans and EIS work.
Steering committee members for Spokane County voted to place an item on the committee's May agenda for a public hearing after lengthy debate over inputs to the state HAPT (Housing Allocation Planning Tool) and an attachment to a county resolution that used outdated numbers.
The move came after planners, city officials and public commenters described how a mid‑process change from population to housing‑share inputs in the HAPT outputs produced numbers some jurisdictions have already used in comprehensive planning. "What the board adopted was the methodology itself," a staff summary to the group said. "What changed were what were the numbers you put into the machine." (staff member)
Why it matters: Counties and cities have used HAPT outputs in environmental impact statements and comp‑plan work. Committee members said the inconsistency — a table attached to a January resolution that reflected earlier population inputs — risks delaying adoption, triggering extra consultant costs for smaller cities and creating uncertainty about where housing will be planned.
Commerce and technical staff responded to public questions. "The HAPT tool is optional; it's a local decision what inputs are put in there," Melissa Alofaitulli, senior planner at the Washington Department of Commerce, told the committee. "We would support the county shifting some of their allocation around if to align with local policy and the GMA."
Several public commenters urged caution. Jim Frank, representing an affordable‑housing alliance, said his review of the HAPT spreadsheet showed the tool uses a long historical look‑back embedded in OFM projections that can inflate rural allocations. "There's no way that you started with that population allocation and ended up with 6,195 houses," Frank said, calling the result "nonsense." He urged the committee to correct the attachment and to ensure the numbers reflect current growth patterns.
Technical planners also clarified how the numbers were produced. Kevin Freybott, senior planner for the City of Spokane, said the countywide HAPT outputs rely on an OFM forecast that looks back 30 years and projects forward 30 years — a parameter local jurisdictions cannot change — while local allocations used different, shorter look‑back windows for jurisdictional distributions.
Action taken: A motion directing staff to prepare an item for a public hearing — including the updated housing allocation table and the methodology as recommended by PTAC (the technical advisory committee) — passed on a voice vote. The committee asked staff to bring a transparent table (housing inputs favored by PTAC) and supporting materials for a May public hearing; the committee indicated the hearing would allow the public to weigh in before any recommendation goes to the Board of County Commissioners.
What's next: Staff will prepare the hearing packet and recommended table; the steering committee will take public comment in May and may forward a recommendation to the county commissioners for adoption or further amendment. The committee also discussed a reconciliation and annual monitoring process to review allocations and consider adjustments before longer‑term reconciliation milestones.
