Council advances tenant 'right to cooling' ordinance to further review after wide public comment

The Spokane City Council took first reading of Ordinance C36877, a proposed 'right to cooling' for residential tenants that would require landlords to provide adequate cooling in dwelling units by Jan. 1, 2031. The ordinance was read into the record and discussion moved into a long public‑comment period that highlighted sharp differences among tenants, tenant advocates, affordable-housing providers and property managers.

Advocates and several residents stressed the ordinance’s public‑health rationale. Speakers repeatedly cited Spokane’s 2021 heat‑dome deaths and urged immediate protections. Hannah Swenson, managing attorney at the Housing Justice Project, described clients at risk and said the measure is “about accountability” for tenants who cannot easily sue landlords during heat emergencies.

Nonprofit affordable‑housing providers and landlord associations urged caution. Jonathan Mallahan, representing Catholic Charities Eastern Washington, said his organization supports the ordinance’s intent but warned that the current draft language could add roughly $12,000 per apartment in upfront costs on one 72‑unit project he cited, potentially making some affordable developments infeasible. Executives from Transitions, Volunteers of America and the Spokane Low Income Housing Consortium asked the council to work with housing providers, Avista and funding partners to avoid unfunded mandates that could reduce the city’s already constrained rental supply.

Stakeholders raised technical ambiguities in the draft: an undefined standard for ‘‘adequate cooling’’ (some speakers asked for a specific temperature benchmark such as 80°F), whether the requirement applies with bedroom doors closed or open, enforcement and inspection protocols, and whether temporary mitigation (portable units) would satisfy compliance while permanent repairs or retrofits are completed. Multiple property managers and trade groups warned that a rapid compliance timeline could trigger electrical upgrades, panel replacements and other capital work that older buildings were not designed to accommodate.

The council did not vote on final passage. Staff and councilmembers noted the merits and urgency of protecting vulnerable residents while acknowledging the operational and budgetary concerns raised by housing providers. Further action on the ordinance was deferred to allow collaborative work with housing agencies, nonprofit providers, Avista and other stakeholders to refine language and identify funding or implementation pathways.

What happens next: the ordinance remains at first reading; councilmembers said they expect follow-up committee meetings and additional stakeholder sessions to resolve measurement, enforcement and funding questions before any final vote.

Key testimonies (selected): Jonathan Mallahan (Catholic Charities) — asked for delay and technical fixes to avoid creating affordability burdens; Kevin Schilling (Rental Housing Association of Washington) — asked that state law (ESB 6200) and a proposed amendment be used as framework; advocates asked for clearer habitability thresholds and proactive enforcement rather than placing enforcement solely on tenants.

Vote/Procedural: Ordinance C36877 was read for first reading and further action was deferred for additional stakeholder work and technical review.