Thursday, October 1, 2026
.jpeg)
Lingering concerns over how the Low Income Housing Institute has handled the Maple Court shelter are driving the Lacey City Council to seek tougher terms in a regional housing agreement for Franz Anderson.
City Council members pressed for stronger accountability provisions during their meeting at Lacey City Hall on Sept. 1. The move comes ahead of formal consideration of the agreement later this month.
Lacey has identified $3 million from its general fund for the Franz Anderson permanent supportive housing project in Olympia.
The regional agreement also includes Olympia, Tumwater and Thurston County, with Low Income Housing Institute (LIHI) serving as the developer.
The latest amendment follows a LIHI request to change the income mix after fewer project-based Housing Choice Vouchers became available. LIHI is proposing 35 units for households earning up to 30 percent of area median income (AMI) and another 35 for households earning up to 50 percent AMI. The 71st unit is for an on-site manager.
The JOLT previously reported all housing units were initially planned for households earning no more than 30 percent AMI. LIHI sought the change after 18 anticipated housing vouchers became unavailable, leaving a projected $285,500 annual shortfall under the original plan.
The City of Lacey indicated earlier this year it could support the income change if additional safeguards were included.
City council members sought provisions addressing LIHI oversight, Maple Court’s conversion from an enhanced shelter to permanent supportive housing, and a deadline for construction to start on Franz Anderson.
The agreement requires Franz Anderson to secure full funding and close financing by Dec. 31, 2026. Construction must start by March 30, 2027.
Failure to meet the deadlines allows a participating jurisdiction to withdraw from the agreement. Olympia must return funds transferred by a jurisdiction that withdraws.
The proposal also requires LIHI to produce quarterly activity reports and provide two case managers with offices at Franz Anderson. LIHI must offer supportive services through a low-barrier model, although tenants cannot be required to participate in services as a condition of receiving housing.
Still, city council members sought tougher language.
Council member Ryan Siu questioned what recourse Lacey has if reports are not shared or performance requirements are not met. He also questioned language stating LIHI will use its “best efforts” to have Sea Mar Community Health Centers provide behavioral health services.
City Manager Rick Walk said the “best efforts” language is too passive to guarantee an outcome, suggesting the agreement instead require Sea Mar or an equivalent service provider for behavioral health services.
Naming Sea Mar alone could lock LIHI into the provider, he said, while an equivalent would allow flexibility if another provider is needed later.
Council member Maren Turner also sought to request more information if quarterly reports do not provide enough information for oversight.
"I am glad that we have some measures in place to demand more accountability," Turner said. "But I do want to make sure that we have that flexibility to add to what we need to see in the report if we don't get it the first time or the second time."
The discussion returned repeatedly to Maple Court, a LIHI-managed enhanced shelter in Lacey that is planned for conversion to permanent supportive housing.
Maple Court has 100 occupied rooms, with $2,994,015 from the state Encampment Resolution Program supporting shelter operations. The 2025-27 state budget authorized $4.25 million for the conversion, while the Regional Housing Council provided $1.1 million. LIHI estimates another $1.5 million is needed.
Council member Lenny Greenstein questioned putting Lacey money into another LIHI project when the city’s $3 million could more than cover the remaining Maple Court need. He also said the proposed regional commitment to Maple Court was too vague.
“If we can’t guarantee that we’re going to get Maple Court done, then we’ve spent an enormous amount of time, energy and money on a complete failure,” Greenstein said.
Deputy Mayor Malcolm Miller shared concerns about the language and called for partner jurisdictions to specifically support funding efforts for the Maple Court conversion.
Concerns about LIHI management surfaced again when Greenstein questioned repeated management turnover at Maple Court.
Lacey Community Planning Manager Ryan Andrews acknowledged the turnover and referred to staff communication with management “inconsistent at best.”
Council member Carolyn Cox also supported stronger accountability between the jurisdictions, but cautioned against characterizing regional homelessness efforts as a failure. She pointed to progress addressing encampments near Interstate 5 as evidence that regional homelessness efforts have produced results.
Staff will seek the requested changes from regional partners before the agreement returns to the Lacey City Council for formal consideration on Sept. 15.
6 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
MartyKenney
This seems like a no-brainer project. Get it done already! So is the council telling LIhi that they can’t change the rent because they agreed to it at first and then the council changed how much funding they were providing in the form of vouchers? That seems sleezy and an opportunity to change the deal under LiHI. Am I seeing that right?
Monday, September 7 Report this
JW
I applaud the Lacey city council for pushing stricter rules against LIHI. LIHI's pathetic mismanagement of Maple Court has been a disaster---essentially a vertical Jungle contained within 4 walls.
Sadly though, this will no doubt ultimately be pushed through and the taxpayers will again be bilked out of millions to support another drain on the community that increases area property crime, drug use, and violence.
Tuesday, September 8 Report this
MartyKenney
JW, I hear you that there’s some assumption that this project will bring in the type of people that make our neighborhoods feel unsafe and unpleasant, I agree, however I’m wondering if it’s worth another look? Would you say that there is a need for this type of housing in general if we can just find the right place to put it? Does this type of building have a part to play in cleaning up the mess of homelessness and drug proliferation? If the answer is yes (which I think is true) then where does this building belong? Does it belong in a mostly “industrial commercial” area? Does it belong at the edge of a middle class neighborhood? Does it belong in deep Tenino where no one will ever see them? I feel like the location of maple court is correct… it’s not my specific neighborhood but I do live near it, on Wiggins rd, and as far as I understand, the location of maple court is already kinda the drug haven homeless spot…. So Why not put it there? Or maybe you just don’t like the idea of helping people try to get out of the homeless trap…. That’s an option too, but I think it’s the wrong one.
Tuesday, September 8 Report this
JW
The only way this deserves a second look is an administrator with zero tolerance for drugs and crime. First offense and you are evicted immediately. LIHI and Interfaith are crime and drug enablers that need to be defunded.
Tuesday, September 8 Report this
DaveinOlyWA
THIS!!!
Nationwide, 17% of low income units are vacant because the very poor cannot afford to live there. This is a big driver of homeless camps and other vagrant activity. Yes, there are the mentally ill that will not accept help but that is also not the majority of people on the streets. Too many are short term homeless (they hope!) suffering some bad luck be it domestic violence, job loss or simply falling thru the growing cracks of community support.
The money spent on this project is a fraction of the increasing cost of environmental damage of homeless camps along with reduced safety due to a MUCH higher level of police activity and emergency room visits.
Average cost of homeless; $55,000 + (Frequently over $100K for those with higher medical needs) annually.
Average cost of person in low income housing; $13,000
So we do this or continue to put money towards a situation that has no solution.
Wednesday, September 9 Report this
MartyKenney
JW, I appreciate you expanding on your concerns with this one. I’m definitely curious to learn more
About what other cities that might be seeing success do about the zero tolerance policy. Like, does it work? Are the shelters/housing projects with zero tolerance producing residents that move up and don’t return to homelessness? I’m unsure. Would love to know more.
Thursday, September 10 Report this