Output of the model as run, 2026-09-22 (inputs as published). ================ the housing model ================ DUVALL HOUSING MODEL, public edition, September 2026. Working analysis; not advice. Every figure below is recomputed from the inputs listed at the top of the model, each with its tag and its source. The inputs are sections 1 and 2 of the model, so this report begins at section 3; every input is listed again under SOURCES at the end. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3. THE BAND TEST: what the state's test needs, and what the neighbourhood upzones add ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ remaining aggregate need, built-ahbl 457 [record] remaining aggregate need, built-draft-t1 382 [record] remaining aggregate need, built-berk 110 [record] staff's Sept 15 comparison (939 - 890) 49 [record] aggregate margin if built homes are credited: 482 to 829 homes, not 49 (a WITHDRAWN reading: the posted slides label the 890 a 2024-2044 target, so their comparison may already net out built homes; see 3c) band need capacity margin 0 to 80% AMI 675 779 104 80 to 120% AMI 10 160 150 over 120% AMI 0 82 82 The neighbourhood upzones (R4.5 to R6, R6 to R8, R8 to R12) add capacity only to the two upper bands, where remaining need is 10 and 0. Contribution to the 0 to 80% band: 0. Jan 6 2026, staff: "we do not need to change ... anything lower than our R20." Sept 1 2026 recording, staff (0:20, 0:23): "we don't have any fat to trim." Both can hold: the second is true of the dense zones, the first of the neighbourhoods (see 3c). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3b. HOMES BUILT SINCE 2019: the city's three counts against the state's own series ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ OFM 2019 estimate 2684 [record] OFM April 2024 3117 [record] growth 2019 to 2024 (OFM) 433 AHBL 'built 2020 to Apr 2024' 433 [record] BERK 'built 2020 to 2024' 780 [record] OFM completions 2020-2024 (calendar) 380 [record] OFM permits 2020-2024 575 [record] OFM April 2026 3198 [record] => AHBL's 433 IS the state series (2019 estimate to April 2024). BERK's 780 matches neither completions (380) nor permits (575); its source is unexplained. The draft plan's 508 uses a model base, not OFM. => since 2019 Duvall has added 514 homes: 58% of the 25-year target in 7 years; 73 a year against the 36 a year the target needs (2.1 times the pace). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3c. THE POSTED SEPT 15 SLIDES: capacity by zone, and what it does to the band test ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ target as the slides label it (2024-2044) 890 [record] the plan appendix's 2024-2044 adjusted need 716 [record] capacity, Dec 2025 1021 [record] capacity, Aug 2026 (posted) 932 [record] said aloud at the meeting 939 [record] Under Commerce's method only zones at 20+/acre count toward the 0 to 80% need of 675: R20 + R30 129, MU20 + MU30 424 = 553 plus CO if it still carries its Dec 2025 107: 660 against the need: -122 to -15 if the 54 pipeline R20 units also count: 607 to 714 margin against 675: -122 (lowest reading) to +39 (highest) => We cannot settle it: the slides publish capacity BY ZONE, not by income band, and do not break out CO or say whether pipeline units count as capacity. The reconstruction runs from -122 to +39. Either way the December surplus of +104 is gone: projects since 2024 consumed land. => So staff's 'no fat to trim' (Sept 1) is defensible FOR THE DENSE ZONES. It is not an answer for R4 to R12 (82 units) or ADUs (63), which serve bands already met. => Section 3d estimates the CO share instead of bracketing it, and narrows the range. => The label question stands: the slides compare capacity to 890 as a '2024-2044' target, while the plan's own appendix puts the 2024-2044 adjusted need at 716 after the 433 homes already built. => Heights proposed in residential zones: R12 35 to 40 ft, R20 to 45 ft, R30 to 50 ft. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3d. THE INCOME-BAND SPLIT, ESTIMATED (so nobody has to ask the city for it) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Method: Commerce's Book 2 mapping, the same one BERK used (Exhibit 4). Zones at 20+ homes/acre serve 0 to 80% AMI; R12, Midtown, Old Town, Uptown and ADUs serve 80 to 120%; R4 to R8 serve 120%+. The city's August 2026 rows do not break CO out of 'CO, OT, UT, MT'; in December CO was 107 of 137 (78%), so we carry that share forward: 144 x 0.78 = 112. band capacity (our estimate) need (city's consultant) margin 0 to 80% AMI 665 to 719 675 -10 to +44 80 to 120% AMI 177 10 +167 over 120% AMI 36 (R4 to R8 share of pipeline: 36) 0 +36 Reading: the band that decides the appeal is within about 44 homes of its requirement either way. The neighbourhood zones and ADUs add 177 homes to a band whose requirement is 10. Publish yours; correct ours. Two inputs would settle it: the CO row, and whether pipeline counts. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4. INCOME CEILINGS (utilities included) and who each tool reaches ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ beds persons 80% AMI rent 60% AMI rent 30% AMI rent 80% AMI price 1 1.5 $2,187 $1,850 $924 $280,082 2 3.0 $2,625 $2,219 $1,109 $345,003 3 4.5 $3,033 $2,565 $1,282 $405,596 4 6.0 $3,383 $2,861 $1,430 $457,532 REACH. A restricted 2-bed at 80% AMI serves a 3-person household earning up to $104,985. The 409 households the plan counts under 30% AMI earn up to $44,370 (3 persons). No drafted city tool (14.47 bonuses, mandatory set-aside, 3.12 exemption) is written below 80% AMI, except the rule counting a 30% AMI unit as two, which closes the paper gap, not the real one. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5. RENT GAP: market rent against the ceilings (tenant utilities added to market rent) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ unit market+util 80% ceiling gap/month 60% ceiling gap/month new 2-bed townhome $3,699 $2,625 $1,074 $2,219 $1,480 new 3-bed townhome $3,994 $3,033 $961 $2,565 $1,429 new 4-bed townhome $3,974 $3,383 $591 $2,861 $1,113 older 2-bed apartment $2,375 $2,625 $-250 $2,219 $156 older 1-bed (450-500 sq ft) $1,800 $2,187 $-387 $1,850 $-50 3-bed house, median $3,700 $3,033 $667 $2,565 $1,135 4-bed house, median $4,000 $3,383 $617 $2,861 $1,139 Older stock already rents at or under the 80% ceiling, unsubsidized. New construction does not. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5b. THE HINGE NUMBER: a new 2-bed apartment rent in a town that has none ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ KCHA payment standard, 98019, 2-bed (gross) $2,070 [record] older Duvall 2-bed asking (net) $2,175 [record] Duvall Village 2-bed townhome, 1,617 sq ft $3,499 [record] Tolt 24, Carnation, 2-bed from $2,196 [record] Lodge at Redmond Ridge, 2-bed from $2,381 [record] regional median, 39 buildings, 2-bed from $2,299 [record] newest Woodinville buildings, 2-bed from $3,357 [record] 80% AMI 2-bed ceiling, net of utilities $2,425 HUD Small Area FMR 98019, 2-bed (gross) $3,420 [record] HUD Small Area FMR 98014 Carnation, 2-bed (gross) $2,340 [record] Two official numbers for Duvall disagree: HUD's 98019 figure ($3,420) tracks rental HOUSES (thin apartment data); KCHA's tier ($2,070) and the valley's 2021 apartment building (Tolt 24, $2,196) track apartments. The finding has to be about the housing the program produces: apartments in R20/R30/MU. existing-stock net rent (KCHA gross less utilities) $1,870; plus a 30% new-build premium => $2,431 premium 20% => $2,244 40% => $2,618 50% => $2,805 rent a new 2-bed must reach for a 30/acre walk-up to pencil with land at $0/acre: $2,305 rent a new 2-bed must reach for a 30/acre walk-up to pencil with land at $250,000/acre: $2,364 rent a new 2-bed must reach for a 30/acre walk-up to pencil with land at $500,000/acre: $2,423 If the market's new-build rent sits below the pencil rent, no apartment is built at any income level: the MU and R30 capacity is paper, and every affordability tool applies to projects that do not happen. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6. COST STACK per home, priced up from national components and checked against a regional quote ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ national hard cost/sq ft (NAHB 2024) $162 [record] regional factor (weakest input) 1.3 [assumption] bottom-up hard cost/sq ft $204 [assumption] Seattle quote, hard/sq ft $300 [literature] Duvall city fees, 2,000 sq ft townhome $59,285 [record] townhome cost ex land/profit, bottom-up $605,019 of which city fees 9.8% townhome cost ex land/profit, seattle-quote $861,531 of which city fees 6.9% ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7. FEASIBILITY SKETCH: residual land value per acre (what a builder could pay for the land) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A falling residual means the landowner is offered less; below what land trades for, nothing is built. Land price is :open; read the CHANGE between rows, not the level. -- cost estimate: bottom-up -- OWNERSHIP, R12, 12 townhomes/acre market only restricted 0 RLV $1,283,772 mandatory 10% at 80% AMI restricted 1 RLV $932,752 mandatory 15% at 80% AMI restricted 2 RLV $581,732 mandatory 15% at 60% AMI restricted 2 RLV $458,030 RENTAL, R30, 30 walk-up apartments/acre (new apartment rent is :open) (R30, not MU30: the draft sets NO maximum density in MU20/MU30, so 14.47's unit multiplier has no base there) market only units 30 restricted 0 RLV $2,516,206 mandatory 15% at 80% AMI units 30 restricted 5 RLV $2,181,196 mandatory 15% at 60% AMI units 30 restricted 5 RLV $1,895,624 14.47 bonus: 1.25x units, 10% at 80% units 38 restricted 4 RLV $2,919,187 3.12 MFTE 8 yr, 10% at 80% units 30 restricted 3 RLV $2,604,136 3.12 MFTE 12 yr, 20% at 80% units 30 restricted 6 RLV $2,498,520 3.12 MFTE 12 yr, 20% at 60% units 30 restricted 6 RLV $2,155,832 MFTE 12 yr + fee waiver, 20% at 60% units 30 restricted 6 RLV $2,354,570 MFTE 12 yr, 20% at 80%, ENDS yr 12 units 30 restricted 6 RLV $2,724,914 MFTE 12 yr, 20% at 60%, ENDS yr 12 units 30 restricted 6 RLV $2,575,212 -- cost estimate: seattle-quote -- OWNERSHIP, R12, 12 townhomes/acre market only restricted 0 RLV $-1,794,368 mandatory 10% at 80% AMI restricted 1 RLV $-2,145,388 mandatory 15% at 80% AMI restricted 2 RLV $-2,496,408 mandatory 15% at 60% AMI restricted 2 RLV $-2,620,110 RENTAL, R30, 30 walk-up apartments/acre (new apartment rent is :open) (R30, not MU30: the draft sets NO maximum density in MU20/MU30, so 14.47's unit multiplier has no base there) market only units 30 restricted 0 RLV $-1,362,250 mandatory 15% at 80% AMI units 30 restricted 5 RLV $-1,697,260 mandatory 15% at 60% AMI units 30 restricted 5 RLV $-1,982,833 14.47 bonus: 1.25x units, 10% at 80% units 38 restricted 4 RLV $-1,993,524 3.12 MFTE 8 yr, 10% at 80% units 30 restricted 3 RLV $-1,137,622 3.12 MFTE 12 yr, 20% at 80% units 30 restricted 6 RLV $-1,198,107 3.12 MFTE 12 yr, 20% at 60% units 30 restricted 6 RLV $-1,540,795 MFTE 12 yr + fee waiver, 20% at 60% units 30 restricted 6 RLV $-1,342,058 MFTE 12 yr, 20% at 80%, ENDS yr 12 units 30 restricted 6 RLV $-971,713 MFTE 12 yr, 20% at 60%, ENDS yr 12 units 30 restricted 6 RLV $-1,121,415 CALIBRATION. Builders are selling new Duvall townhomes at $730,000 to $880,000 now, so the ownership residual must be positive in fact: real costs sit nearer the bottom-up estimate than the Seattle quote. Read the bottom-up block as the working case; the Seattle block as a stress test. TERM. Rows marked ENDS yr 12 follow the statute (RCW 84.14.020(8): restriction ends with the exemption; owner owes one month's rent as relocation help). Other MFTE rows follow the draft 3.12, which cross-references 14.47.050's life-of-project duration. The city should say which it means. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7b. CALIBRATION: what regional factor does the Duvall townhome market imply? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NAHB 2024: the finished lot is 13.7% of a new home's price -> about $109,600 a lot here. factor hard/sq ft residual per lot (market, 12/acre) 15% mandatory at 80% AMI, per lot 1.20 $188 $148,687 $90,184 1.30 $204 $106,981 $48,478 1.40 $219 $65,275 $6,772 1.50 $235 $23,569 $-34,934 1.60 $251 $-18,137 $-76,640 Where the market residual meets the lot benchmark is the factor the market is paying for. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7c. THE PURCHASE: what each tool costs, who pays, and what rent reduction it delivers ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ R30 prototype, 30 homes, 6 restricted (20%), statute term of 12 years unless noted. public cost of a 12-year exemption (present value, all taxing districts): $384,325 = about $48,387 a year on a building worth $5,498,556 in improvements at 80% AMI: rent reduction delivered to tenants (PV) $271,854; public cost per restricted home-month $445; tenant saves $475 a month; 0.71 dollars of rent reduction per public dollar at 60% AMI: rent reduction delivered to tenants (PV) $503,591; public cost per restricted home-month $445; tenant saves $881 a month; 1.31 dollars of rent reduction per public dollar SENSITIVITY: rent reduction per public dollar, by the new 2-bed rent we cannot yet observe (no apartment building exists in Duvall to observe; Duvall Village's 1,617 sq ft townhome is $3,499) rent $2,500: 80% AMI 0.11 60% AMI 0.72 50% AMI 1.27 rent $2,700: 80% AMI 0.41 60% AMI 1.01 50% AMI 1.56 rent $2,900: 80% AMI 0.71 60% AMI 1.31 50% AMI 1.86 rent $3,100: 80% AMI 1.00 60% AMI 1.61 50% AMI 2.16 rent $3,300: 80% AMI 1.30 60% AMI 1.91 50% AMI 2.46 rent $3,499: 80% AMI 1.60 60% AMI 2.20 50% AMI 2.75 Read: dollars of rent reduction delivered per public dollar. Below 1.00 the building keeps the difference. WHO PAYS, by tool: tax exemption ..... other taxpayers, a small levy shift (or forgone district revenue at the rate cap); JLARC 2019: 'the amount that would have been collected ... is paid by other taxpayers' fee waiver ........ the city's utility and impact funds (i.e. ratepayers and the general fund) 14.47 bonus ....... the neighbourhood, in height, bulk, trees and traffic; no dollar line anywhere mandatory ......... the landowner (lower land price) and, where it will not absorb, the project that is not built The exemption is the only tool whose cost is a visible, capped, contracted public dollar figure. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7f. SIMULATION: the city holds the hearing and sets the rental level. What follows? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Market anchor: the valley's newest apartments (Tolt 24, Carnation, built 2021) at $2,196 for a 2-bed. A 30-home building, 6 homes restricted, 12-year exemption. 'Binds?' asks whether the restricted rent is actually below what the market charges. level ceiling(net) vs market binds? rent cut/home rent cut per public $ (exemption) RLV vs market 80% $2,425 $229 NO $0 0.00 +83% 60% $2,019 $-177 yes $177 0.26 +69% 50% $1,650 $-546 yes $546 0.81 +40% Read: at 80% the ceiling sits ABOVE the valley's market rent, so the restriction binds on nothing; the exemption is then a construction subsidy with an affordability label. At 50 and 60% it binds, and the building still pencils better than market because the exemption more than covers the lost rent. But at this market anchor the exemption returns LESS rent reduction than it costs the public (every ratio above is under 1.00); section 7c shows the ratio rising with the new-build rent. So a hearing and a finding for 80% would have to find that the city NEEDS a ceiling above market rent. AND A CHEAPER INSTRUMENT: waive the city's own fees on the restricted homes instead. Public cost: $198,737 for 6 homes ($33,123 each, 2026 schedule). Rent reduction bought, per public dollar: 80%: 0.00 60%: 0.51 50%: 1.57 The fee waiver buys more rent reduction per public dollar than the exemption at every level that binds, and it is a one-time cost the council can price exactly. The city administrator's Sept 8 memo sets it out. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7g. THE STACK: what the public already owns, converted into rent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Per restricted home, the three things a city can give without raising a tax: land, at Lot 409's appraisal, per apartment $48,708 [record] (Lot 409 appraised $1,461,244 an acre; at 30 homes an acre that is $48,708 per apartment; the MU30 block's cheapest land, $240,000 an acre, gives $8,000) city fees waived (apartment) $33,123 [record] of which park + transportation impact fees $14,351 [record] the 80% the memo says needs no backfill $11,481 of which utility connection charges (must be funded) $18,772 [record] 12-year tax exemption, per restricted home $64,054 TOTAL the public can put behind one home $145,885 What a rent cut costs, in the same money (present value, 12 years at 7%): cut to 50% of median ($546 a month): $52,088 cut to 30% of median ($1,287 a month): $122,643 the same cuts held forever (capitalised): $119,236 and $280,745 READ: the stack ($145,885) covers a 30%-of-median rent for twelve years ($122,643), or a 50%-of-median rent permanently ($119,236). Without public land it does not: fees plus exemption alone are $97,177. LAND THRESHOLD: public land closes the 12-year 30%-of-median gap where land is worth at least $763,978 an acre at 30 homes an acre. Lot 409 is appraised well above it; the block's cheapest land is below it. So the land is the difference between a label and a home. That is why RCW 39.33.015 matters, and why the city's own 2023 plan (Action I.1) proposed a ground-lease programme it never built. CAN THE GAP BE CLOSED WITHOUT PUBLIC LAND? The shortfall to a 12-year 30%-of-median rent is $25,466. a) extend the exemption 12 more years (RCW 84.14.020(6)): adds $28,441 per restricted home b) nonprofit ownership, permanent property tax exemption (RCW 84.36.560) instead: $115,208 per home c) drop 1.5 surface stalls per home (a city parking choice; the state's cap binds only cities over 30,000): $9,000 d) build the restricted homes 200 sq ft smaller: $44,477 of cost avoided e) a fee-in-lieu fund from other projects, or county/state capital: whatever the council collects Stacking (a) with fees gets to $125,618, which clears the $122,643 needed. So yes: an extended exemption plus waived fees reaches a 30%-of-median rent for 24 years WITHOUT public land, at the price of a 24-year tax holiday. Public land is cheaper for the public and permanent; the exemption route is available where the city owns nothing suitable. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7d. LARGER ARCS: laws and prices moving the cost of a home (direction; size where known) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [up ] Canadian softwood lumber: duties ~24.8% plus 10% Section 232 tariff (mid-2026) verified-headline: framing is 16.6% of construction cost (NAHB); lumber is part of it; per-home figure OPEN [either] WA energy code 2024 (WSEC-R): heat pumps as the default verified-headline: BIAW: electric path saves ~$1,759-$4,307 vs prior code; gas path ~$25,320 more; builders choose electric [either] I-2066 struck down, WA Supreme Court, Sept 17 2026 (6-3, single subject) verified-headline: which prior provisions return (HB 1589, energy code, UTC plans) is OPEN; the cost lands on OLD homes' gas service [down ] Duvall 2026 school impact fee set to $0 (was $8,622 single-family) record: City of Duvall 2026 fee schedule [up ] Duvall city fees ~$59,300 per 2,000 sq ft townhome record: sewer, traffic, water, park, storm [up ] Climate Commitment Act carbon price on fuels open: reaches materials and trucking; size OPEN [down ] State parking-minimum caps (2025) and middle-housing law (2023) open: the 2025 parking cap (SB 5184) does not apply to cities of 30,000 or less, so not to Duvall; middle housing OPEN [down ] Single-stair allowance (2023) open: matters for 4-6 storey walk-ups in MU zones; OPEN [either] MFTE sunset for new exemptions Jan 1 2032 record: RCW 84.14.020(10) The arc that touches our argument most: pressure on OLD homes (fuel conversion, gas rates) lands on the stock that is affordable today without subsidy (section 5). New-build affordability tools do not reach it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7e. DESIGN FORKS: each is a choice the city makes, whether or not it says so ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [duration] How long does a restricted home stay restricted? - 12 years, the statute's MFTE term; one month's rent at the end - life of project, draft 3.12 via 14.47.050 - 12 + a 12-year extension, city's choice [income] At what income level? - 50% AMI rentals, the state default (36.70A.540) - 60% - 80%, the draft; needs a hearing and a market finding [tool] Which tool carries it? - tax exemption (public dollar) - fee waiver (public dollar) - density/height bonus (paid in form) - mandatory (paid by land) [where] Where? - R20/R30/MU20/MU30/CO only - plus R12, Midtown, Uptown (draft 14.47) - citywide [upzones] The neighbourhood upzones (R4.5->R6, R6->R8, R8->R12)? - hold them: they add nothing to the band test - keep them as the middle-housing niche (staff, Jan 6) [target] The 890 and the 675? - comply as assigned - seek reconciliation from the county executive (25-3 precedent) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10. TOOLS THE CITY HAS, AND LEVERS THE PUBLIC HAS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOOLS (who holds it | authority | note) [city ] Voluntary incentive program (density/height bonuses), draft 14.47 not required by the state; the bonuses are paid in building form, not money [city ] Mandatory inclusionary requirement in upzoned areas allowed by RCW 36.70A.540 in areas given added capacity; not required; rental default 50% AMI [city ] Multifamily tax exemption, draft 3.12 ch. 84.14 RCW; 8 or 12 years; a contract recorded before the permit; new exemptions end Jan 1 2032 [city ] Impact fee exemption for low-income housing RCW 82.02.060(2): a city MAY exempt, but must pay the exempted amount from other public funds; Duvall's fees run about $59,300 a townhome [city ] Surplus public land for affordable housing RCW 39.33.015: any municipality may transfer, lease or dispose of surplus property for affordable housing; the city's own 2023 Housing Action Plan (I.1) proposed a ground-lease program [city ] ARCH membership or fee-for-service administration about $36,000 a year, cheaper than half an FTE (staff, Sept 15) [county] County 0.1% sales tax for affordable housing RCW 82.14.530; county-level, councilmanic alternative available [county] Target reconciliation a letter to the County Executive; precedent GMPC Motion 25-3 (128 homes moved, Nov 2025) [state ] Anti-displacement measures required by the housing element law; the Mercer Island order treats them as immediate, not deferrable [city ] Nexus or feasibility study the city's own 2023 plan, Action I.8, put the study BEFORE the requirement LEVERS [public ] Written comment into the record, naming the issue RCW 36.70A.280(2)(b): only people who took part in writing or in person can petition later [public ] Public records request for the capacity workbook ch. 42.56 RCW: a legal demand with a five-day response clock, not a favour [public ] Comment to Commerce during its 60-day review RCW 36.70A.106(1) [public ] Petition the Growth Management Hearings Board within 60 days of publication; Mercer Island (case 25-3-0003) shows a nonprofit plus two residents winning a remand [public ] Ask Commerce for a targeted housing-element review RCW 36.70A.835(9): up to 10 jurisdictions a year; 2026 list includes Carnation, not Duvall [public ] Comment at the county's growth council, and at the county council's ratification of Motion 25-3 GMPC meets Nov 18 2026; agendas carry a public comment item [public ] Budget hearings (Oct 6 strategic fund, Nov 3 final) where a fee exemption, ARCH, or a study gets funded [closed ] Local initiative or referendum on the zoning NOT available: Washington courts hold the zoning power is delegated to the council, not the city as a corporate body (Leonard v. Bothell, 87 Wn.2d 847; Lince v. Bremerton, 25 Wn. App. 309; Save Our State Park, 74 Wn. App. 637) [hard ] Statewide initiative I-2066 passed in 2024 and was struck down 6-3 on Sept 17 2026 for combining four subjects; a future measure must be single-subject ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ OPEN AND ASSUMED INPUTS (replace to firm up) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ cap-rate 0.055 assumption the yield a buyer of a new suburban apartment building would accept discount 0.07 assumption for present values: the tax exemption, the rent cuts down-payment 0.05 assumption a first-time buyer's typical low down payment finance-share 0.06 assumption construction interest, as share of hard + soft; roughly a year of draws at 2026 construction-loan rates ins-hoa 300 assumption monthly insurance plus HOA for a townhome mf-fee-factor 0.6 assumption multifamily share of single-family utility and traffic fees; the schedule lists multifamily as 'contact city' mortgage-rate 0.065 assumption 30-year fixed; near the 2026 market rate; check current new-build-premium 0.3 assumption new construction over existing-stock rent; Tolt 24 (built 2021) is the nearest measurement opex 0.32 assumption operating cost share of effective rent, incl. property tax; 30 to 35% is common for new suburban apartments profit-rent 0.12 assumption return on cost a rental developer needs above the cap-rate value; investors commonly look for 10 to 15% region-factor 1.3 assumption Seattle-area building costs over NAHB's national average, set where the Duvall townhome market puts it: at 1.30 a townhome lot's residual value meets NAHB's lot benchmark (section 7b). Hard cost is then about $204/sq ft, under the $300 Seattle rowhouse quote (the high check). The weakest input: change it and rerun rent-new-apt-2br 2900 open no Duvall apartment building exists; triangulated 2,600-3,100, see section 5b soft-share 0.15 assumption design, engineering, legal, insurance, as share of hard cost; a common planning range is 10 to 20% sqft-apt 900 assumption a modest 2-bed walk-up apartment surface-stall 6000 assumption per surface parking stall, paving, drainage and lighting utility-allow 200 assumption monthly utilities a tenant pays; the ceilings include utilities, so market rents get this added utility-allowance-2br 200 assumption KCHA publishes no schedule on its landlord page; its 2025 energy supplement for a PSE tenant-paid 2-bed multifamily unit is $172 (energy only), so $200 all-in is plausible vacancy 0.05 assumption a stabilised suburban apartment vacancy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SOURCES (number on our pages, citation, where to find it) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ahbl [14] City of Duvall draft comprehensive plan, September 2026, Appendix A (AHBL and ECONorthwest land capacity memo, Aug 28 2024), Tables A-2 and A-4 https://www.duvallwa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/15674 berk [4][15] BERK Consulting, Land Capacity Analysis for City of Duvall Proposed Rezones, Dec 3 2025, Exhibits 1, 4, 5 and 6 https://www.duvallwa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/15116 draft-t1 [14] City of Duvall draft comprehensive plan, September 2026, Table T-1 https://www.duvallwa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/15674 cc0915 [13] City of Duvall council meeting, Sept 15 2026, city recording (staff said 939 against 890 aloud) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mdt37WZJydk slides15 [12] City of Duvall, 'Workshop on Duvall Municipal Code Title 14', slides, Sept 15 2026 https://www.duvallwa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/15690 cc0106 [1][29] City of Duvall council meeting, Jan 6 2026, city recording https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1O2bsZl8u6U cc0901 [19] City of Duvall council meeting, Sept 1 2026, city recording (0:20 and 0:23) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9iVGb68UNs hud26 [5] HUD FY2026 income limits, King County (Seattle-Bellevue HUD Metro FMR Area) https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html hudfmr (additional) HUD FY2026 Fair Market Rents and Small Area Fair Market Rents, ZIP 98019 and 98014 https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr.html survey [27] Our rent survey, Sept 19 2026: Duvall Village floor plans and starting rents (duvallvillage.com/floorplans); older two-bedroom asks from listing search results ('Elevation', from $2,149; 32910 NE 195th St, $2,199) https://duvallvillage.com/floorplans rentlist [9] Rent listings captured Sept 19 2026 (Zillow and property websites), Duvall and nearby cities, with year built from King County Assessor records https://www.zillow.com/apartments/carnation-wa/tolt-24/9VSmVs/ salelist (additional) New-construction townhome sale listings, Duvall, search results read Sept 19 2026 ($729,990 to $881,389; 1,934 to 2,430 sq ft) no stable link: a new-construction for-sale search for Duvall, WA on the major listing sites fees26 (additional) City of Duvall 2026 Fee Schedule, Resolution 25-11 https://www.duvallwa.gov/DocumentCenter (the city's Document Center; search 'fee schedule') nahb24 (additional) National Association of Home Builders, Cost of Constructing a Home 2024 (Eric Lynch, Jan 20 2025) https://www.nahb.org/news-and-economics/housing-economics (NAHB housing economics, special studies) harrison (additional) Harrison Architects, Seattle rowhouse, townhouse and small apartment hard cost of about $300 a square foot plus sitework, Nov 2025 https://harrisonarchitects.com/how-much-will-it-cost/ levy26 (additional) King County Assessor, 2026 levy rates by levy code: Duvall, code 1155, $8.80155 per $1,000 https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/assessor/buildings-and-property/property-value-and-information/reports/levy-rate-reports/taxing-districts-codes-and-levies salestax (additional) Washington Department of Revenue, sales and use tax rates: Duvall combined rate 9.2% in 2026 https://dor.wa.gov/taxes-rates/sales-use-tax-rates rcw [20][22][23][24][26] Revised Code of Washington: RCW 36.70A.540; chapter 84.14; RCW 82.02.060; RCW 39.33.015; RCW 82.14.530 https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/ d1415 [44] City of Duvall draft DMC 14.15 (residential) and 14.20 (mixed use and commercial), Sept 1 2026: minimum and maximum densities https://www.duvallwa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/15653 and https://www.duvallwa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/15654 ofm [2] Washington Office of Financial Management, April 1 postcensal housing estimates and permit series, Duvall https://ofm.wa.gov/washington-data-research/population-demographics/population-estimates/april-1-official-population-estimates kcha (additional) King County Housing Authority, voucher payment standards effective Jan 1 2025: ZIP 98019 is Tier 3 https://www.kcha.org/landlords/payment-standards gmhb-mi [10] Growth Management Hearings Board case 25-3-0003 (Futurewise and residents v. Mercer Island), Final Decision and Order, Aug 1 2025 https://letstalk.mercergov.org/comprehensive-plan-gma-compliance hap [25] City of Duvall Housing Action Plan, adopted Sept 19 2023, Actions I.1 and I.8 https://www.duvallwa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/10360 jlarc [28] Washington Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee, Multifamily Tax Exemption review, 2019 https://leg.wa.gov/jlarc/taxReports/2019/MFTE/p_a/default.html gmpc [32][33] King County Growth Management Planning Council, Motion 25-3 and staff report, Nov 19 2025; membership page https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/executive/governance-leadership/performance-strategy-budget/regional-planning/gmpc kca409 [43] King County Assessor, parcel 7299021190 (Lot 409, The Ridge at Big Rock Phase III), tax roll valued 2025 https://blue.kingcounty.com/Assessor/eRealProperty/Detail.aspx?ParcelNbr=7299021190 kcgis [43] King County parcel layer, appraised land value of the unplatted acreage in the block proposed as MU30 (parcels 2426069023, 2426069070), queried Sept 21 2026 https://gismaps.kingcounty.gov/parcelviewer2/ ================ roads and parking ================ DUVALL ROADS AND PARKING SKETCH, public edition, September 2026. Our estimate; not a traffic study. new homes in the showing ........ 1021 (779 apartments at 20+/acre, 242 other) added AM peak trips ............. 493. [LITERATURE/RECORD] of which outbound ............... 419. [LITERATURE] per entry (3 entries) ........... 140. veh/hr headroom per entry at LOS D ..... 540 veh/hr [LITERATURE] => share of headroom consumed ... 26.% within the estimated headroom parking spaces demanded ......... 1497. [LITERATURE] if the city allowed only 0.5/unit (the state cap for cities over 30,000; not Duvall): overflow 623. cars onto the street [LITERATURE] at 30 units/acre with 1.5 spaces each: 45. spaces = 14625. sq ft of surface lot = 34.% of the acre before any building new resident workers ............ 1532. [ASSUMPTION] in-town jobs now held by in-commuters 1000 [RECORD] => if new residents took every in-commuter job, out-commute still grows by 532. workers flood closure days/yr ........... 3 [RECORD] (households cut off: all of them) THE QUESTION FOR THE COUNCIL: run this with the city's own traffic model and parking inventory. If the answer is 'over capacity', the plan's own reassessment strategy says land-use assumptions may be adjusted. INPUTS AND SOURCES new-units-lowrise 779 record BERK Dec 3 2025, Exhibits 5 and 6 [15]: capacity in zones at 20+ homes an acre (booked as 0-80% AMI) new-units-moderate 160 record BERK Dec 3 2025 [15]: 80-120% AMI zones new-units-low 82 record BERK Dec 3 2025 [15]: over 120% AMI zones am-trips-per-apartment 0.4 literature ITE Trip Generation, multifamily low-rise, AM peak hour, order of magnitude am-trips-per-house 0.75 literature ITE Trip Generation, single-family, AM peak hour, order of magnitude parking-per-apartment 1.3 literature ITE Parking Generation, suburban multifamily, order of magnitude; the city's parking INVENTORY is not public parking-per-house 2.0 literature ITE Parking Generation, single-family, order of magnitude required-spaces-per-unit-low 0.5 literature a hypothetical: the 2025 state cap on parking minimums (SB 5184, Laws of 2025 ch. 204) [F] applies only to cities over 30,000; Duvall is not one required-spaces-per-unit-high 1.5 literature a conventional suburban minimum for apartments entry-count 3 record the town's road entries: SR 203 north, SR 203 south, Woodinville-Duvall Road entry-am-peak-capacity-vph 1100 literature two-lane highway, one direction, near the LOS D threshold (Highway Capacity Manual); in-town intersections govern before this entry-am-peak-existing-vph 560 assumption WSDOT 2025 AADT [E]: SR 203 south of NE 124th 9,100, north at Cherry Valley Rd 9,200; peak share K = 0.10, peak direction D = 0.60 gives about 550, rounded up; Woodinville-Duvall Rd is a county road with no count here, assumed similar outbound-share 0.85 literature share of morning trips leaving town; 92% of working residents work outside the city (Housing Needs Assessment [C]), less school and errand trips flood-closure-days-per-year 3 record Dec 9 to 12 2025: SR 203 closed north of town about three days; Duvall and Carnation cut off Dec 11 (Snoqualmie Valley Record [D]) in-commuters 1000 record draft comprehensive plan, Sept 2026 [14]: 'over 1,000 commuters traveling to Duvall' workers-per-household 1.5 assumption working adults per new household; a suburban order of magnitude