Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Allocations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Spokane County staff say Commerce 'cracked open' HAP tool after allocations shifted; commissioners push for reconciliation
Summary
County planners told commissioners that the state's HAP housing-allocation tool produced surprising shifts in unit counts—raising Spokane city's allocation by roughly 5,000 units—because of proprietary weightings; Commerce has since provided an unrestricted spreadsheet and staff proposed a targeted reconciliation process to resolve inconsistencies.
Spokane County planning staff told the Board of County Commissioners on Feb. 23 that the state's Housing Allocation Projection (HAP) tool produced housing-unit allocations that diverge from previously discussed population projections and that the county needs a formal reconciliation to avoid noncompliance with the Growth Management Act.
"Commerce has agreed to crack open the box. They sent us an unrestricted uh tool a week ago," Scott Chesy, the county presenter, said. He told commissioners the HAP algorithm applied a mix of factors—60% on recent growth, 30% on what the tool labels housing‑cost inequity, and 10% for institutional/group‑quarters—producing shifts that staff could not explain until they received the spreadsheet.
The discrepancy matters because the county's earlier population projection showed roughly 100,000 new residents countywide through 2046, with the unincorporated urban growth area (UGA) responsible for 30,000+ of that growth. When the HAP tool converted population to housing units, allocations moved toward the cities; Chesy said the city of Spokane’s housing allocation rose by about 5,000 units while some unincorporated areas dropped.
Commissioners pressed staff about practical capacity: "They don't have the capital facilities. They don't have the infrastructure to support where they're going to put 5,000 homes inside the city," a commissioner said during the exchange, citing the city's DEIS as lacking quantifiable infrastructure costs. Chesy confirmed the county's capital facilities plan and the city’s EIS will need more rigorous engineering and cost detail before final decisions.
Because the HAP formulas were initially proprietary, county planners could not explain why some jurisdictions' allocations increased or decreased. Chesy said the unrestricted spreadsheet should allow staff to trace the calculations, and he recommended a targeted reconciliation process to adjust allocations for local realities before the county adopts its plan.
Staff flagged other sources of allocation divergence: group‑quarters populations (prisons, hospitals) counted in population but not appropriate as housing units, and local variations in household size. Chesy said those factors account for part—but not all—of the differences.
The board asked staff to return with a draft reconciliation proposal and clearer explanations of the HAP outputs. Commissioners also requested updated information on the Mercer Island hearings‑board decision (see separate article) because that ruling could require counties to identify implementation mechanisms for certain housing types, not just zoning allowances.
Next steps: staff will continue analysis of the Commerce spreadsheet, prepare a targeted reconciliation recommendation, and report back to the board and the steering committee in advance of code revisions and public hearings later in 2026.
