The Olympia City Council explored various housing solutions and strategies to increase access to affordable homeownership.
At a meeting on Tuesday, January 23, Paul Knox of KnoxWorks Consulting and Sam Green of the Northwest Cooperative Development Center presented their findings and recommendations on expanding affordable homeownership options to the council.
The consultants' report identified many strategies for the city to help more low- and moderate-income residents become homeowners. These included cooperative housing models, land trusts, manufactured homes, and allowing for denser "missing middle" housing types.
The report emphasized the need for partnership across sectors. The consultants recommended that the city engage other public entities and private sectors that can help with land and support affordable housing, workforce housing, and others.
Knox said the city should engage employers, schools, non-profits, developers, and the Port of Olympia to help solve the housing crisis.
Councilmembers expressed interest in prioritizing land surveys, office conversions, and establishing a pipeline to prepare renters for homeownership.
Councilmember Lisa Parshley supported surveying vacant lots to identify affordable housing development opportunities across the city. She is also interested in seeing office buildings redeveloped into housing.
Councilmember Dani Madrone highlighted two potential partnership opportunities with the Olympia School District and the Port of Olympia.
Madrone acknowledged that the school district owns undeveloped land in the city that could be worth discussing. She added that the Port has developed housing on land in the past, indicating there may be potential for a similar partnership to help address the city's housing needs.
Knox also recommended developing a "starter home" ordinance like accessory dwelling unit law to reduce impact fees and other costs to incentivize new homes of a specific size.
In reply to Councilmember Robert Vanderpool's inquiry about helping reduce development costs, Knox pointed to lowering impact fees as a potential option.
"Impact fees are a big chunk of money for any development," said Knox. Though the city has reduced impact fees by 80% for accessory dwelling units, infrastructure costs for items like sewers, sidewalks, and others can be very high. He suggested the city could offer deals or reductions to lower these costs for targeted affordable housing projects.
Councilmember Jim Cooper floated the idea of a ballot measure to bond for capital construction of affordable housing projects over a cycle. He was interested in the potential for a city loan guarantee program to incentivize private sector participation.
Cooper also proposed convening developers who have done conversions to housing to share lessons learned and resources with the community.
The affordable homeownership study was first presented at the Land Use and Environment Committee in October.
According to Madrone, who chairs the land use committee, the committee had requested funding in the previous budget session to hire consultants to conduct a study on expanding affordable homeownership options. She said they have goals around homeownership in the city's Housing Action Plan but need more tools and strategies developed.
The consultants will return to the committee in February. Madrone wanted them to develop a feasibility scoring system to help the committee understand the ease of implementing different strategies, the associated costs, and staff resource requirements. It would provide an overview of which ideas seem most feasible and "low hanging" for the city to advance initially. This scoring approach would help the land use committee determine the best path forward as they work to refine recommendations and define the next steps.
10 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
pheong
not a single word about an increasing tax burden shifted to homeowners thanks to developers given a decade's or more tax abatement to build 'market-level' apartments. $2000/month for a 1 bedroom at 123 4th.
Wednesday, January 24 Report this
JulesJames
A 5,200 square foot empty lot directly north of Bigelow Park was recently listed on the market for $93,000. Internet calculators estimate a 1,500 square foot house could be built for $250,000 with an 800 sq ft detached ADU for another $140,000, plus government permits and fees. So $500,000 is basically "affordable" - a modest income-generating residence. I don't know how government funding is going to reduce these costs.
Wednesday, January 24 Report this
Callie
Take a look at https://www.thurstonhousinglandtrust.org/ for one solution.
This takes is a system that creates affordable housing that STAYS affordable as ownership changes.
Got a house? Can you give it to the trust in your will? Your legacy = your house stays affordable for ordinary people who are stable, employed - able to get a mortgage if the upfront cost has subsidy - and the subsidy stays with the property, not flipped. Think housing for teachers, nurses, mechanics, . . .keep 'em in the neighborhood.
Thurston Housing Land Trust member
Thursday, January 25 Report this
BobJacobs
It's interesting that all the quotes about lowering impact fees are silent on the financial impacts of doing so.
When impact fees are lowered, all of us pay more taxes to construct the facilities (schools, roads, parks) needed to serve the new developments.
Please, government officials and advocates, tell us "the rest of the story"
Bob Jacobs
Thursday, January 25 Report this
BobJacobs
The only thing that will bring housing supply and demand back into balance so the market can work normally is to add housing. Some of the ideas in this article would do that.
However, the bulk of the recent and currently proposed changes to the housing market make it harder and less profitable to be a landlord. These changes will only DELAY the construction of more housing units. Because they make it less desirable to invest in housing.
Bob Jacobs
Thursday, January 25 Report this
Southsoundguy
None of these will work. The root cause is the fact that people (incentivized by government) have been using residential real estate as store of value, counting on artificial scarcity (imposed through zoning and other land use laws, which are a taking) combined with price inflation through monetary debasement and low interest rates to drive up valuations. Until the fake value is stripped out and placed into a different store of value, real estate prices will remain detached from reality. Add on the costs of building due to excessive government regulation, and they will never come down; at least until the government and financial masters decide to transfer wealth from the boomers and artificially crash markets.
Thursday, January 25 Report this
Yeti1981
Oh, some of these comments. You can't argue that reducing impact fees would be damaging and then say we need to add housing as the solution in one breath. Impact fees are an economic barrier to "affordable" housing. In fact, they're mostly a sham that just equals an entry fee for the new people in town. The most equitable way to pay for government outlays is to spread taxes evenly among the entire population in a community. Impact fees create exclusionary zones. Just because you were somewhere first, doesn't mean you have the right to keep out all other development. It doesn't give you any special privileges over other folks who also need housing and should be able to live where they want just as you got to do. In fact, the largest percentage of government outlays are typically maintenance and repair. In other words, the folks who are already there. These outlays are typically spread over bonds and levies that overlap and can be 30+ year terms. Charging the developer impact fees for infrastructure that existing residents will also benefit from doesn't make sense. It always gets passed on to the home buyer in the form of thousands of dollars added to the cost of a new home. For every $1,000 in cost,, you price out 4,800 Washington families. Remember, buildings don't grow people. They don't ****. They don't use the roads. Etc. People do. People who are already there, as well as those moving in. So, an equitable arrangement means everyone pays their fair share.
Thursday, January 25 Report this
MrCommonSense
We seem to sometimes overlook the income side of the equation. If we focus on improved education, increased income for workers, attracting higher wage-paying employers instead of warehouses (Lacey, a lousy use of our precious land resources) we could improve folks ability to afford a home.
But we also need to make housing more affordable. Some of them are; reducing impact fees, reducing the cost of money, build smaller units, different types of living units, more energy efficient units to reduce ongoing utility costs, more sustainable and longer lasting materials to reduce maintenance, and building where we already have infrastructure (streets, sewer, water, etc).
The ideas of local or state bond money at below market rates is a good source of cheaper money. A graduated impact fee structure would be a good idea. Building where services (sewer, roads, water, parks, schools) already exist, the fees should be much less. Allowing/promoting ADUs and requiring/allowing higher densities can also be helpful.
But, as always, divergent opinions will delay all of these longer than necessary. Instead of relying so much on consultants, and arguing over which ones to implement (like the never ending discussion of additional downtown parking), we should be listening, cooperating, and trusting our common sense.
Thursday, January 25 Report this
DesertMedic
Housing is affordable based on how much you make. Not everyone can live in the city that they work in, or where they want to. Affordable housing is nice but can actually hurt some of those living here and affecting out values. We need to look out for everyone not just those that complain the most.
Thursday, January 25 Report this
rhenda
The “sham” of impact fees simplified:
You buy a piece of property in a remote area with no utilities. You build a house, buy a generator for electricity, drill a well, buy a pump, install a septic tank and drain field for waste. You are happy in your oasis. Then along comes someone else who buys land next to you where they want to build a house. They knock on your door “Hey, I can’t afford to buy everything I need to occupy this house, so I’ll be using what is already here. The electrician will be over later today to hook up to our generator, tomorrow the backhoe will be here to connect to our septic tank, and lay the water lines for our well water. Also, I’ll be over Mondays and Thursday to use our washer and dryer. What? You don’t want some freeloader helping themselves to your utility investment? You sized them for yourself and now they will wear out twice as fast? You want MONEY to help pay for expansion? That’s a sham. Why don’t you support affordable housing?
Friday, January 26 Report this