HomeMy WebLinkAbout072006 Minutes
e
e
e
City of Port Townsend
Joint City Council and Planning Commission Workshop
July 20, 2006 7:00 PM
Fire Hall
Meeting Materials:
I. Agenda - July 20, 2006
2. City Council Packet: Agenda Bill AB06-076; Housing Action Plan for East Jefferson
County
3. Draft - Housing Action Plan (distributed by Tom Beckwith during meeting)
I. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Mark Welch called the meeting to order, thanked all those present for attending, and led
the assembled body in the Pledge of Allegiance.
II. ROLL CALL
The City Council members present were: Mr. Benskin, Ms. Robinson, Ms. Sandoval, Mr.
Walker, and Mr. Welch. Mrs. Medlicott and Mr. Masci were excused
The Planning Commission members present were: Ms. Capron, Mr. Emery, Mr. Lizut, Mr.
Randels, Ms. Thayer, and Mr. Unterseher. Ms. King, Mr. Ray and Ms. Slabaugh were excused.
III. HOUSING ACTION PLAN FOR EAST JEFFERSON COUNTY
Mayor Welch briefly explained the purpose of the meeting and noted that it would be moderately
informal, with an opportunity for public comment and questions following the presentation. He
then turned the meeting over to Judy Surber, Senior Planner, who introduced the project and the
consnltant, Mr. Tom Beckwith of Beckwith Consulting. Ms. Surber said that this was a first
touch, ie. first meeting with the City Council and with the Planning Commission, on the Housing
Needs Assessment. She said that the City and County partnered with the help of a Community
Development Block Grant on a housing needs assessment, the most important component being
the action plan. In addition to identifYing and documenting housing needs, the goal is to identifY
strategies, resources, and partnership opportunities with non-profit organizations and other
government agencies to fund and address those needs.
Tom Beckwith was retained as a consultant and has been working with the Housing Needs
Advisory Group appointed by the City Council and the Board of County Commissioners. His
role has been to work with staff and the Advisory Group to pull together data and resources and
to develop the report.
She said that Mr. Beckwith would present an overview at this workshop of the work done during
the last 8 months. Later they would present the recommended Action Plan. The county website
has additional information on past housing assessments under housing affordability issues. She
noted that affording a home or renting was definitely becoming more difficult in this area.
Although ADUs (Accessory Dwelling Units) do provide some affordable housing, the Advisory
Group found that 35% of those renting in East Jefferson County are paying more than 35% of
J(Jint (,'ily Council ~lIld PLtnnjng C(lJlllnlSSlon
\\\lrksh(lp \-,Iinutcs .Iul) :::0. ]O(lh Pa~c 1 I.d' ~
their household income for their rent. She noted that low and moderate income families,
including those in the service sector (police, firefighters, teachers) and even the marine trades
need housing close to their work. It becomes increasingly difficult to recruit for these types of
positions because of the high cost of housing and transportation combined.
Mr. Beckwith began by distributing some additional materials. He said these had been gathered
together with the intention of conveying a sense of the final report and as examples of the various
components that would be included in the final report.
Page number notation -- Mr. Beckwith pointed out that in extracting excerpts from the draft, he
had added hand-written page numbers on the bottom right hand side as a quick reference for
walking through the documents.
First Page - Original Process: This sequence lays out the work program: Investigate existing
conditions, project out demands/needs over the 20 year future, not just for affordable housing but
for everyone; assessment of the strategies used so far, and how well they are working; sampling
of public opinion, and lastly preparing the documentation itself.
Page 2 -lists the formal participants to date. It does not include focus groups of realtorslbuilders,
and lenders or everyone who attended the open houses. Mr. Beckwith added that this has been
very much a public document and a public process.
Pages 3 and 4 - shows the planned contents of the fmal report. The first four chapters will be the
narrative identifying what exists, the needs, strategies employed and how well they worked, new
approaches introduced, and chapter 5 is the action plan. He said these kinds of studies produce
many graphs and statistics, which have been placed in appendices in order to keep the hase
document more readable and compact. Ultimately, all of the material will be available on the
web site.
Page 5 - Population Projections to Date: i.e. population history from 1900 to 2005. He said that
these projections have been allocated down from the state to the counties to the local level. He
said that these estimates spanning the next 20 years are actually relatively conservative figures.
Our local rates of growth of the last five years are outperforming every other area of the state.
"We believe that the numbers that you are using are going to prove to be cautious; you are
actually going to experience more growth than what we think we are dealing with."
The pages that follow are just simple graphs of the statistics that show Jefferson County in
comparison to four other areas. On the left hand side of every graph is a bar representing the
United States, per the census data in 2000. He said that even though it is dated, the census data
was used because it is the most reliable comparison data available between this area and other
areas of the country and state. He added that, later on, they had updated the data in various ways
to incorporate current growth trends.
Mr. Beckwith apologized for the poor quality of the black and white reproductions ofthe original
color graphs. He explained that in each graph, the first bar is the US, the second bar is
Washington state, the third bar is Puget Sound (King, Snohomish, Pierce and Kitsap Counties),
and the fourth bar ( darkest bar) is Jefferson County total. To the right of that are the subdivisions
within the county.
Median house value and median rent are shown. He said that this area is a little bit higher than
the nation and state, but below Puget Sound in most characteristics.
Joint City Council and Planning Commission
Workshop Minutes - July 20. 2006 Page 2 of 8
e
e
e
e
e
tit
What is the income capability and how does that affect us? Mr. Beckwith said that is where one
begins to see a significant difference. This is due primarily to the type of populations that are
attracted to this community: older, mostly retired or working in resource industries with lower
rates of pay. On the following page, the data shows that buying power is less than in the urban
areas; he said that is true for households, and also shown on page 9 for selected occupations. He
said, one question that arose during the process was "How does this affect government and
service employees, because these are some of the key skills needed to develop, as opposed to
grow." He explained that they had pulled typical pay scales for the Bremerton metropolitan
statistical area, which are close to scales in this locale, and had shown the average salary for
police, frrefighters, teachers, clerks, cashiers and waiters. Later on, they had shown what people
in these positions can and cannot afford. He noted that teachers, firefighters and police, and to
some extent clerks, are above the median average. He stressed that when you find that these
people cannot afford houses that reflects the extent of the problem for those below the median.
Page 10 shows the indicators of who is of most need. These are typically the kinds of indicators
that are examined in housing programs to determine what you qualify for. One indicator is:
percentage of households below 30% of the median income of an area. Port Townsend/Jefferson
County (PT/JC) is about average - better than the US but comparable to what is happening in the
rest of the state. The second indicator is: what percent of the population is in poverty? Here,
statistics start climbing. The next is: what percent of families are in poverty, and what percent of
female headed households are in poverty?
He then moved to a different statistic: owners paying more than 35% of their income for housing
costs. "The standard used to be 30 %, and that was all costs, not just rent or mortgage payments.
We are finding that people are paying over 35%just for the mortgage. These people mayor may
not be the same statistics we looked at just previously. These can be well-off people who can't
find a housing product at a price they can afford. The next is the same for renters, and you are
starting to see the pinch on your county households. Page 16 gives you some stats: by income
levels; potentially 2600 households within the county are in need in so far as what are called the
affordability issues. Jfyou look at poverty, that is 2800. Ifwe look at those paying more than
35%, it is about 2000. But those are not necessarily the same people; the numbers could be
additive; they may be in poverty but not above 35%, or you could be making good money, but
paying more than you should for housing."
"We are going to forecast this for 2006, 2012 and 2024, and we have not vetted those projections
yet with the committee, so I have not shown you what they are. Roughly, the issue is: what is
income growth compared to housing cost growth? The numbers increase significantly, and even
quadruple, and get even larger numerically and in percent of households across the county."
"Then we looked at what is going on in the housing market; these are current stats, derived from
Multi-list, state statistical records, realtors etc. This shows the median value of an existing house,
not necessarily new product. From 1995 to 2004, the sales values more than doubled. Please
keep in mind, incomes did not double, but the value of an existing house sold during this period
did, and it outperformed the state."
Page 18 - "This shows what you can buy. Using 30% of your household income, and as you go
from left to right, your income goes up. The bar on the left shows a house you could have bought
in 2000, i.e. $] 40,000. On the right, is the price of an average median house now: $288,000. In
the year 2000, you needed a $40,000 income to buy a median house; in today's market, you need
$80,000 to buy that median house."
.h)im CLty C'ouncil and Planning C\ltnlnis,:,ion
\\'nrkshop r\TinllTcs Juh ~(L ::?006 Page 3 or:\
Councilor Sandoval asked Mr. Beckwith to review this chart again. She noted that Years are not
shown on the chart. He explained that the year was mentioned in the paragraph but not on the
chart. The left side represents 2000 and the right is 2004 (or 2006?): "To read the chart: income
on the bottom line is plotted against the line indicating the cost of a house you can afford with
that income."
Mr. Randels asked if a second guideline that might be used, instead of the 30 or 35% of income,
for empty-nesters, particularly retired empty nesters. Mr. Beckwith responded that if you have
equity, the ratio could go substantially higher. There was a brief discussion as to whether,
regardless of equity, the non-housing expenses for this group might be substantially less than for
a family raising children. Mr. Beckwith noted that although seniors may not spend as much on
food, clothing and transportation as a young family, they typically have higher medical and drug
costs, and that the 30 or 35% tended to be used by the federal government and was appropriate
for these purposes. He asked that discussion of other statistics that might differentiate levels of
need be held until after all the material in the handout had been reviewed. He said that basically
the intention was to use a variety of statistics and to arrive at a composite view; anyone statistic
may not be as meaningful in and of itself, as when it is considered in light of all other
information.
Page 19 shows the impact on selected occupations. While making more than what would be
considered median income, none of the selected occupatious could buy an existing median house
in the year 2004.
Page 20 and 21 - Mr. Beckwith said that the same thing is shown for rent.
Page 22 provides a brief summary of resources in the County currently. These are the other
sponsors, what they have developed and indicators of their needs.
Page 24-25 shows what OlyCap has in place.
Page 26 shows Homeward Bound, Habitat for Humanity, and USDA.
Page 28 shows a projection of what some federal subsidized housing is doing in the county. This
reflects that part of the project is making an inventory of what is in place and its impacts.
Page 30 is a quick summary of actions being proposed, indicating roles for participants. On the
left side of the chart are listed 42 specific actions that the committee is recommending. They are
grouped into categories for ease of understanding. For example, 5.1 is about creating the
organization and funding as necessary to execute the actions that follow. One of the key ones is
3, Economic Development,("Raise the tide, and all boats float.") But, as in 5.3, lots of
households don't know how to fmance to get a loan, how to do rehab, how to do maintenance and
repair. Those people need to have some preliminary introduction before these programs are
applied. Regarding 5.4 Planning Measures, Mr. Beckwith said that much had been done within
the past two years, but that some items listed are based on earlier work and have been refined for
the second round. Category 5.5 Affordable housing policies embodies the question of what
should be used in the private market itself: bonuses, quotas or both. He also pointed out that the
lack of infrastructure (5.6), sewers in particular, was a concern in many areas. Under 5.7,
Financial Incentives and Implementation, specialized lenders and investors need to be recruited
here. He said such entities are active along the 1-5 corridor, but are not currently involved in this
locale. In 5.8 Rehabilitation Programs, some issues are shared and limited equity participation
Joint City Council and Planning Commission
Workshop Minutes - July 20, 2006 Page 4 of 8
e
e
e
e
e
-
for containing costs. Mr. Beckwith mentioned the inclusion of some aggressive development
programs (5.9) based on prototypes in other areas, e.g. Santa Fe. Category 5.10, Accountability
and Follow-up, addresses annual assessment and evaluation of progress. He called attention to
the fact that no participant(s) will do it all, and many of the actions require involvement of many
participants. In terms of timing, many of the items can be done in the first year: e.g. planning,
recruitment of fmancial players and development of infrastructure strategies. Those that require
intervention, Le. rehabilitation and development programs, will require multiple years and likely
have the greatest impacts.
Page 30-40, Telephone Survey, was really designed to test public reaction to three things: I. it is
a summary of conditions described earlier as statistical, Le. did the public agree with those
perceptions or not?; 2. it is to present the action plan and verify (or not) that these actions should
be taken, as wen as determine their importance; 3. it shows reaction to examples of prototype
development projects. Mr. Beckwith noted that this version of the survey statistical results had
124 completions out of the original 300 sample. He said the final version would include the full
count of 138 completed surveys, but he did not expect the final outcome to change significantly.
Ratings - He noted that in many questions, the respondents were asked to rate things on a I to 5
scale. The box on the far right ofthe results matrix gives the mean score for each answer. Any
time the score is 3 or higher, a plurality of responses were 4 or 5. As a surveyor, he found two
things interesting. One was how many of the items had scores above 3, in action planning and in
the conditions. The other was the profile of the respondents: older citizen who has lived here a
while and who sees themselves to be in good shape financially; relatively satisfied with their
house, and their own housing costs. However, they also believed that conditions, in general, in
the County were going sharply downhill. That is, they saw a tight squeeze on other households
and a negative impact on the economy. They were willing to support these major proposals, in
predominant numbers.
The committee had discussed at length that the respondents did not necessarily reflect the actual
people who would participate in these programs. This reflects registered voters, who were
deliberately chosen because many of these actions require public policy and will eventually
involve money. Voters are the people who will ultimately decide these issues. He said that the
survey results are very much in support of what the committee is generating.
He said there was one aside regarding money. The respondents do not favor creating funds.
However, although they were not in favor of creating a revolving fund, for example, when asked
how much they would contribute if they did, about 69% said they would be willing to contribute
something. In summary, these respondents are satisfied, older, generally well off, see the needs,
and are willing to contribute something.
Councilor Benskin asked Mr. Beckwith ifhe thought the results would be different if the base (of
the sample) was extended to those who did not fall into the older, well off categories. Mr.
Beckwith replied that yes, if the samples were taken from the general population, the groups of
households "feeling the pinch" would likely be more aggressive in their ratings of conditions
within the County. However, he said, that in order to test public policy acceptance, it was
necessary to survey those most likely to turn out if any of these proposals either go to a
referendum, or ask for a program validation, or ask for money. So, he thought the respondents
were, in fact, very typical of those who would turn out to vote.
Mayor Welch asked how the demographic sample was designed, Le. what were the criteria and
what was the process? Mr. Beckwith said they had obtained a random sample list from the
Joint City C\\un(l\ (\nd Pl;\nning C()mrnls\ii)n
\\'orkshnfl i\'linules -- JuJ.\ ':-:0. ~OO() Page:; oJ' X
County of all households, called each household, asked if they were registered voters, and asked
if they would be willing to participate in the survey. They recruited 300 households on a random
basis, mailed them this survey and then began calling them about one week later; they stopped
calling when they had received 138 completed surveys. In response to Commissioner Thayer's
follow up question, he confirmed that the random sample was of all households (not just
registered voters) who were then asked if they were registered voters, and not if they were likely
voters. If they were registered voters, they were given a brief description of the survey, and if
they then expressed interest they were included.
Couucilor Walker referred to page 39 regarding types of densities; he noted the positive responses
regarding rural village centers, neo-traditional and mixed use options, and said he was pleased to
see that response.. Mr. Beckwith said that examples had been included in the survey to help
respondents differentiate and appreciate the merits of each possible option.
Mr. Beckwith added that he had been involved in a Park Plan survey for the County about three
years ago, and that the demographics of the respOndents had been similar: older, long term
residents, etc. He said that that survey had not asked about income and financial information. In
the housing survey, verbatim comments from respondents (not included in the handout) show this
to be a very diverse group. "What we find is that the people most interested in participating in
these kinds of surveys and follow through are on the opposite ends of the spectrum. They are
either very much for or very much against something, which is typical of what drives an
election."
Commissioner Thayer asked if it had been the advisory committee's decision to have only
registered voters or if that decision came from elsewhere. Mr. Beckwith replied that the
committee had been given the option of general population or ouly registered voters, adding that
the cousu1tants had recommended that option because ultimately these issues are going to come
before elected officials and involve public policy. Ms. Thayer asked specifically "Did the
committee make that decision?" and Mr. Beckwith replied, "I believe that they did",... ''with the
caveat that it(the sample) is not typical of an average household, but of a typical voter."
Councilor Robinson, referring to page 33, said she was returning to the survey item #29 which
indicates that 40% of the respondents paid $0 per month for rent or mortgage. She said that was a
very interesting factor in that it provided the background to the responses. Mr. Beckwith repeated
his earlier statement that as a group these are very comfortable people. She asked if there was a
benchmark percentage for utilities or transportation, as there was for mortgage or rent. Mr.
Beckwith said that the old benchmark for all housing cost was 30%, and that was used by
standard lenders to determine affordability. "You can see that lending practices with variable
rates and other factors have pushed that upper limit, and there are many cases where people are
paying over 30-35% for mortgage or rent alone." He noted that, per the survey, utility and
transportation expenses could take as much as I 0 to 20% more of monthly income, but that it was
not possible to discern from this survey the additive effect on particular households.
Commissioner Unterseher asked how these figures compared to Seattle, for example.
Mr. Beckwith said that an exact comparison was not available. He said the only data available
was the census material, showing what the census called "housing costs. That showed that the
population under study was paying higher than the nation or the state, but less than the Puget
Sound area. He also noted that in the July 16 Seattle Times, an article had identified only 9
places in the County where a middle income family could afford to buy a house.
Joint City Council and Planning Commission
Workshop Minutes - July 20. 2006 Page 6 01'8
e
e
e
e
e
e
Councilor Sandoval restated that there was understanding that the survey group were not
representative of the group who would be in need of affordable housing solutions. She noted that
on page 37-38, when offered "out of the box" solutions that speak oflimited equity, the survey
group gave lower scores to those solutions. They were not willing to have home equity limited,
and preferred the sweat equity solutions. She also noted that the probable participants in these
programs, such as service industries employees, would have difficulty in fmding the hours to
invest in these sweat equity programs. She said that based on her conversations with young
people, those serviced by these programs may actually prefer the limited equity options.
Ms. Sandoval recalled that there had been multiple surveys and that this telephone survey was
particularly directed at determining how much in favor voters would be of policy decisions by
elected officials to spend money on housing programs. It was to determine how much political
will exists to create the legislation, and endorse/support such programs.
Mr. Unterseher's question as to whether there is really a problem, compared to anywhere else,
prompted a brief discussion, with several others agreeing that there was defiuitely a problem. Mr.
Beckwith added that the nature and context of each housing problem is unique and requires a
unique solution. He said that in King County, the problem for everyone is finding a house. Here,
the work force can't find affordable housing, which has far-reaching economic consequences to
everyone. Councilor Walker added that this is a growing problem that, if unaddressed, will be
even worse in the future. Mr. Unterseher raised the question of whether there was too much
focus on home ownership. Mr. Welch cited a study revealing that on average the eventual net
worth of home owners was 34 times greater than that of non homeowners. Mr. Beckwith stated
that the stakes are rising, and people are willing to take on greater risk to "get in the game".
However, more defaults are to be expected in a few years, in which case "you haven't done them
any favors". Mr. Walker said that he had been thinking about the commonly held belief that
"Rising tides lift all boats." He said, "That may be true for the yachts, but the leaky boats sink."
Ms. Thayer agreed that history has demonstrated that to be true. Ms. Sandoval referred to a
survey in which 80% of the general population responding reported that they were members of
the middle class, whereas statistically, to be in the middle, you actually need to have an annual
income of $250,000.
Mr. Beckwith also noted that the remoteness of Port Townsend from a major metropolitan area
exacerbates the problem. He gave the example of Mount Vernon where there is growth and a
high demand for cheaper housing, but where young families will still be within driving distance
of jobs in the 1-5 corridor. In this county, you have to live here to work here, he said.
Mr. Welch invited questions from the audience. The first question was "When you look at the
138 surveys, how does that relate statistically with the population of the county, to get a good
sampling?" Mr. Beckwith said that sampling size determines the margin of error. Normally, in a
political survey using a minimum sample size of 400, there would be a margin of error of plus or
minus 4%. In this case, with the smaller sample size (due to budgetary reasons), there is a margin
of error of plus or minus 9 or 10%. He said that the goal in this survey was to determine which
items were important and which were not, and to roughly prioritize their importance, i.e. did an
item fall above or below 50%. Having a greater sample size may have increased the statistical
accuracy, but would not actually have provided additional or more meaningful information.
Larry Crocket, Port of Port Townsend, voiced what he referred to as more anecdotal evidence of
the housing problem. He said that he hears regularly from his own staff, who are unionized and
earn decent wages plus full benefits, as well as marine trades people, many of whom commute
from more affordable areas such as Quilcene and Brinnon. However, he noted that with rising
Joint City Council ;Jnd PL:mning COllll1lissiun
Wurkshup \lilll.lles- Juh '0. ~il(l(> 1\It'C 7l>lk
transportation costs, even those locations become less "affordable". However, another serious
issue is the quality of the workforce. He said that recruitment of the skilled craftsperson, with a
family, from outside the County may not be possible, and employers may need to fill positions
with people who are not as qualified as they should be. He added, referring to page 39, that he
found it interesting that although survey respondents were in favor of various village and
clustering options, they did not want to live in them.
There were no further comments or questions from the audience.
Ms. Surber reported that she had gotten several phone calls from city employees, a Port
employee, and several County employees indicating how difficult it has been for them to get into
the housing market. She mentioned GIS people and engineering staff with young families in
particular, and said that if they can't find housing in the near future, it would not be surprising for
them to be recruited elsewhere.
Mr. Beckwith added that the examples shown on pages 41 - 44 are mixed income projects; the
rule is that the typical neighborhood or area must be mixed income or it will not be successful.
Secondly, there will be a chapter called New Approaches. Those new approaches involve a
variety of things including equity sharing, equity limiting and these types of ventures, as well as
the example from Santa Fe. He said that these prototypes were purposefully sought out and
selected in order to provide real world working examples with reference contacts. He added that
the market had been very innovative in the last three or four years, using every kind of device that
exists. He stressed the point that there is no one solution.
Mayor Welch asked what the next step would be for the committee. Mr. Beckwith said that the
fmal report is being drafted and that the committee would vet it within the next few weeks. As
soon as they are comfortable with it, it will be made available on the web site, and presented. Ms.
Sandoval suggested that especially for any black and white copies, the figures on top of the bar
graphs be moved upward so as to be readable. She also suggested that page 30, the Action Plan,
be revised, enlarged, or expanded to two pages, so as to be more readable, given that it was the
most important part of the report.
Mr. Randels stated that he would like to thank Mr. Emery for representing the Planning
Commission on the Housing Advisory Committee, and Mr. Welch added his note of thanks to all
those who had served in this effort. He also thanked Mr. Beckwith for his presentation. Ms.
Surber also recognized the Advisory Committee members present in the audience; she introduced
Kathy McKenna and Steve Paysee.
IV. Adjournment
Mayor Welch adjourned the meeting at 8:00 PM
M~
Gail Bernhard, Meeting Recorder
Joint City Council and Planning Commission
Workshop Minutes ~ Jnly 20, 2006 Page 8 of 8
e
e
e