October 12, 2022 6:30pm
Present:
Bob Jacobs (Governor Stevens), Martha Worcester (Redwood Estates), Charlotte Persons (Bigelow), Dana McAvoy (East Bay Drive), Judy Bardin (Northwest), Darrah Johnson (Wildwood), Karen Clemens (Eastside), Darrah Johnson (Wildwood), Lisa Riener (Burbank Elliott), Bruce Coulter (Northwest),), Tim Smith (City Planner), Larry Dzieza (Nottingham), Dontae Payne (Councilmember), Victor Minjares (South Capitol)
6:30 – 7:00 Neighborhood Reports
Bob Jacobs (Governor Stevens) having full neighborhood membership meeting at the time of this CNA meeting. Bob thanked the city for waiving the annual meeting requirement during the COVID crisis the last couple of years.
Dana McAvoy – Full Board meeting last Thursday and live face-to-face. Election went forward. Board has 8 members but is down one.
Bruce Colter – Had meeting at Garfield Elementary School for October 27. Daniel Einstein is the guest speaker and hoping for a good turnout.
Melissa Allen – Annual meeting is tomorrow. Melissa will no longer be president after 5 years. Still on the Board. She asked if CNA participation requires being on the Board. Larry said the Board can decide who wants to represent them at the CNA.
Jenn Wulf – Arts Walk has been a busy time for her and things are picking up and hoping to turn the Fertile Grounds into a coop.
Karen Sweeny – Eastside is having the annual meeting in November and will be held at the Armory. October 22nd is the Eastside Talent Show (3rd Annual) at the Salvation Army Church on 4th Street.
Martha Worcester – Redwood Estates related a need to find a good landscaper for her HOA. Discussed the trees that have been cut to removed along the trail to remove camping opportunities near the Freeway. Group is doing well.
Judy Bardin (NOWNA) – Discussed reviving the Carolyn Neighborhood Association.
Darrah Johnson (Wildwood) – Annual meeting on Thursday. Fall Photo Booth at end of October. Moving out of the Chair position.
Larry Dzieza (Nottingham) – Discussed meeting later in the year to adopt the budget and vote for officers. Discussed traffic slowing efforts by neighborhood parents. Do it yourself signs.
Lisa Reiner (Burbank Elliott) – Concern about illegal campfires. Contacted code enforcement but nothing has happened yet.
Martha Worcester – Reported about a grant to work on a circle in their area with lots of people involved. Had a big party celebrating all the work and really cleaned the area up. Thankful for the grant. A big concern is the green space between the road and the sidewalk planting area near Fones Road and 18th the area in the circle is overgrown and blocks the view of vehicles. Between Redwood Place and Craig Street there is no overgrowth and asked who she could talk to about it. Sophie Stimson recommended going to Oly Connects.
Charlette Persons – Spoke about a successful Annual Meeting on August 2nd along with the National Night Out. She was elected President and some new Board members. They have put a new Little Free Library. A neighborhood park cleanup is scheduled and work on the Jay Elder Orchard that will include a tree planting.
Bob Jacobs – Had annual BBQ and fabulous attendance with over 50 people and lots of little kids.
Judy Bardin – Having a Board meeting next week. A big neighborhood meeting in October.
Darrah Johnson – Planning for October’s Annual Meeting. Last quarterly meeting was the Night Out.
Larry Dzieza – Related the request from Nottingham neighbors for vehicles to slow down and drive more carefully. He described his “open letter” to the neighborhood about careful driving. Larry asked what is possible to do to improve the situation. Martha said that people put out the little triangle signs and children at play signs that constrict the street width. Tim Smith suggested connecting with Transportation in Public Works. Sophie Stimson suggested the yard signs suggesting slowing down. Larry said we have 10 of them.
Ryan Hollander (SWONA) – first in-person meeting (held quarterly) and had an awesome turnout with snacks. Over 50 paid dues members. Working on the stakeholders group for the Capital Mall Triangle. Had meeting with Makers and City stakeholders. Staying true to the vision for the Triangle. The community stakeholder meeting is coming up.
7:00 – 7:15 Council Liaison Report
Dontae Payne – He inquired with Lisa about follow-up on code enforcement. The council is at the budget adoption stage for FY 2023. The process adopts the budget in December. Expansion of programs determined by needs and community values and council priorities. Doesn’t assume increases in tax rates except for “inspire Olympia” ballot passing.
$2.6 million budget enhancements for departments.
Inflation has an impact on a variety of areas as well as a growing community.
The Council’s 2023 legislative agenda: Climate change, funding Deschutes estuary proposal, reducing gun violence, solid waste reduction, supporting $1m for Armory and grants for parks. Other requests as well and will be deliberating over other priorities. Stay tuned for more details.
The RFA is meeting tonight. They are working on final options tonight. Stay tuned.
The Community Livability and Safety Committee which he chairs is meeting this month and the property crime update shows that Olympia has a bigger problem than other cities – less violent crime but more property crime. Update from police chief. Street safety plan briefing and getting update on city vehicle safety, traffic collisions, walking and biking. Recommends watching the meeting if you can’t attend.
Bob Jacobs asked Dontae to consider public involvement in what the Council asks the Legislature for in our name. At least there should be public hearings. Dontae responded that he would take that message back to the staff and the Council. He says that they feel that they are representing what the city has been asking for.
7:10 – 7:50 Updates on City Issues of Neighborhood Interest
- Multi-Family Tax Exemption (MFTE) – Study Update (Darian/Dontae)
Darian Lightfoot reviewed the history of the MFTE and outlined the tasks given to the consultants to expand the areas effected and how successful they are in achieving the City’s goals.
There had been no affordability requirements for the 8 year exemptions but he 12 year requires 20% of the total units be affordable at 115% of AMI.
They were asked to look at a “fee in-lieu of” set asides of affordable units. Or have a affordability tied to 8-year. They were “tested” by the consultants.
The incentives are to create density.
Concerns over the more “nuanced” the program, the more staff involvement is required to implement.
Residual Land Value methodology.
Shows that only the 8-year no fee (i.e., social benefit?) encourages builders to build downtown.
On the Eastside, where the land is cheaper, affordability works in that area. “…but have those affordability pieces in the program along with a more restrictive 8-year. So those giveaways to the developers aren’t as apparent. We are seen here that we could have a more restrictive 8-year and it would still be enticing to developers.”
Larry asked to explain the 100% and 115%. She said that the 8 year would be at 115% of AMI or below for all units. Today, it can be at market rate, any income level. The 50% fee means that half the benefit given up by the city would have to be paid back into an affordable housing fund.
Bob Jacobs asked what a 115% AMI equals? Darian replied that $90,000 for a family of four is 100% so it would be about $98,000 for a family of four at 115%. And the benefit is time limited to the 8 or 12 years. Bob affirmed that it is a time limited affordability.
Judy said that the upcoming of the Comp Plan calls for housing for all income levels and how does this recommendation on MFTE work with the Comp Plan requirement.
Darian said the goal is to create density and incentivize development in areas that are under-developed. Density with transportation and places to work and density in general.
Affordability is not the goal but could be a “bonus”. She said we have other programs that create affordable housing like the Home Fund. Other state and federal programs. She said it is tough to look at the MFTE as a program to create affordable housing. That is not its origin. Affordability is not the intent of the program.
Judy said it doesn’t seem consistent where the legislature wants us to go.
Larry asked if it is true that when you allow greater density you increase the value of the land? Yet the problem that EcoNW points at is the increasing value of land. So doesn’t this actually increase the value of the land even further? Darian called on Leonard to reply.
Leonard said that certainly the value of the land will go up when the density is allowed to be higher. So yes, the land value is going to go up because more people coming but doesn’t know if the study will say that the MFTE itself would make land values grow further, because in itself it doesn’t allow any more density than already in the zoning. We don’t have the answer to the question whether the MFTE is increasing land value.
Dontae said his take is that the CNA’s concerns are valid. 578 units have been developed in which 82 (Merritt Manor used the 12 year program for affordable) are affordable. Not zero. What Council is wrestling with is how can we incentivize developers to build more faster and more affordable? Admits this is not where we need to be. We need all types of housing, not just affordable housing. We need a diverse housing market. Said he would be first to admit that though there has been some affordable units its not where we want to be.
I got an explanation of the difference between low-income and affordable housing. There is a big difference.
He said he has concerns about the future of this program. The one size fits all of the MFTE program is not working.
We need to all kinds of housing units for the people that we anticipate will be here.
Ryan Hollander thanked them for the presentation and asked about who EconNW interviewed. Mostly downtown. The reason given was because of its density and water levels. Ryan asked where the MFTE project are in terms of median income? Leonard doesn’t have recent data (a few years old) but it was close to the 100% to 115% level. Ryan asked what ratio of the income the rent would be?
Darian, agreed with Leonard that the rents have been at the between 100% and 120% range. The 30% of income is benchmark. Ryan clarified that places like Annie Flats rents would be 30% of the median income if we looked at them. Darian agreed between 100% and 120%. It is categorized as “moderate”.
Larry asked about the JLARC report that said that the report recommended that cities include an “analysis of profitability as a consideration of offering or approving exemptions” and asked if the City is considering that? Leonard said yes that is what the study is trying to do. “What is the developers cost, what is the rental income respectively and the land value and that’s trying to get on the xy axis of where they would invest on the upper half or rather the right hand side of those axis is where the developer might see some profitability and therefore might build.” Larry followed up by asking if beyond the study’s general conclusions, what about looking at each project proposal on a case-by-case basis before granting the exemption? Leonard said thinks there was some discussion of that but its not included in the recommendation but its certainly an option.
Melissa asked about neighborhood level and neighborhood centers. The consultants are recommending more density which were originally envisioned of things like small coffee shops. She said she is concerned that this will bring a lot more density with the streets and not much room for anything. She asked Darian if her map which she described as neighborhood centers but they are really “hubs”? Are we back to thinking that higher densities will be in the hubs, not the neighborhood centers? Darian replied, yes, she misspoke.
Bob Jacobs referred to the JLARC study and its conclusion that they found no effect of the MFTE on housing. He said that the study approach is bogus as it holds the value of the land as a constant and it is anything but a constant. He asked why we are charging forward with a program that is has no evidence of effectiveness? Is the EconNW saying that JLARC was wrong? Leonard said the JLARC study found no evidence either way. JLARC did not have enough information to reach a conclusion which is why we contracted with EconNW. Bob followed up with “did EconNW use property values as a constant or variable”? Leonard and Darian said they don’t know the answer to that but doesn’t think so. Would need to get back to them to get Bob an answer on that.
Dante repeated that the MFTE is a tool for developing affordable housing. We do have to prepare for growth. The question on why we are continuing to use the program is that the program shows it does provide more housing for different income levels. We need to see how we might increase more affordable units than the 82 so far.
Larry said that there have been other developments that have not received these tax breaks so there must be some developers who do invest in multi-family housing without the incentives. Larry asserted that the presumption that development does not occur without the MFTE seems speculative. Darian said that the city is extremely underdeveloped in terms of unit creation but agreed, yes it is happening, but not at the rate we need it to.
Bob Jacobs asked why we are treating Olympia as a silo. We are in an area housing market. Units in Lacey are just as good at serving the demand as units built in Olympia.
- County Participation and Federal Funding Opportunities in support of City
Larry turned the discussion to how other jurisdictions are helping us out in meeting our homeless challenges. Darian said that the transportation department right-of-way contract to help along I-5. Thurston County have $50 million coming. Thurston County has 5 encampments. There is a big regional project that we are working on through legislature provided revenues. Larry asked if any other city will be the host to the homeless? Darian said that the unnamed hotel that will be purchased is not in Olympia. It is 120 units that will become permanent supported housing, the largest such in the county.
- 2022 SE Urban Growth Area Annexation Study (Tim)
Tim provided a brief rundown on annexation proposal. Has a contract with consultant for financial analysis of the annexation area extending down to Yelm Hwy, Indian Summers and adding about 1,000 people about 3.5 miles of area. It is part of our urban growth area. We have agreement with county that development in the area develop to urban densities. The previous study looked at the feasibility and whether adding the entire area is affordable in terms of providing services for fire, policy and streets, etc. A December report will be forthcoming. The RFA is an issue to consider, with and without the city having a fire department. Next Spring/Summer the council can give a go/no go on it. It is a long process and requires a hearing. Includes a Boundary Review by the County as well.
Larry said that he has been doing work on the RFA and that the Fire Benefit Charge seems to be the major reason to create the RFA as cities can’t use that revenue technique. Larry pointed out how the 1% property tax limitation seems to be driving cities to do things to overcome it, like RFAs and makes cities look to sales and B&O taxes that do keep up with inflation. Knowing that, Larry asked, wouldn’t that doom picking up primarily residential neighborhoods where their major revenue is based mostly on property taxes? Tim said there is some potential commercial development potential on Rich Rd. But yes, there is less reliance on property tax which is why we have the Metropolitan Parks District, the Transportation Benefit District…all those things would expand with the new areas coming into the city. We would also get impact fees when there is new developments out there. These will all be considered by the consultants.
Bob Jacobs said that recent annexations result in huge liabilities to bring infrastructure up to standards, especially streets and sidewalks. Will the study measure those costs in a way says what it costs to bring it up to the standards of Olympia? Tim said the capital expenses need to be in the study. Even the new developments in the annexation area are not up to the City’s current standard, rather the standards in place 15 years ago.
- Regional Fire Authority
Larry presented his work on the impact of the RFA proposal on residences. He shared a document that has by address the square footage charges for the RFA and compared it to what the same property currently pays in property tax.
Larry explained that the square footage is not just the usual space but includes garages, attics, porches, basements and other spaces. Larry explained the effects that the square root included in the formula results in a regressive fee, where the more expensive and larger houses tend to pay less than smaller, less costly properties.
Bob Jacobs asked why some properties showed much bigger percentages than others. Larry said he would research the particular properties (upon research, Larry found out that those properties were recently built or in the process of being built and the property tax did not reflect the constructed value of the structures completely or for the full tax period).
Larry went through some options that are possible that would avoid the need for the RFA or a regressive formula. Melissa asked if this would save the city money but cost property owners more? Larry said, yes. Melissa asked if it would come up for a vote by the public? Larry replied, yes, likely in April and require a 60% vote. Melissa pointed out the bad timing in terms of the economy.
Larry pointed out that Olympia has a great fire department and is one of the highest rated in the state. Larry pointed out that some places have failed to pass it but the basic problem is that the state needs to fix the lack of inflation resistant property taxes.
Sidewalks
Larry replayed multiple clips concerning sidewalks. First was Clark Gilman’s statement to the CNA about the long history of not dealing with sidewalks effectively and that we should consider sidewalks as part of our multi-modal system. Larry reviewed CNA letters to the Council and the direction of Leonard Bauer that people should get involved in the Capital Facilities Plan as its where the Council addresses those needs.
Larry also played a clip where the Planning Commission Tracy Carlos said that when she had no car and had to walk everywhere she dreaded going into some neighborhoods because of the sidewalks. She said it’s a big problem as some of the people in those neighborhoods can’t go anywhere because they are in wheelchairs and the sidewalks aren’t safe for them and its something that has to be worked on.
In the clip from the Planning Commission on 9-27-22 the Commissioners discussed and heard from neighborhoods about the sidewalk problem. It was suggested that when the street conditions are surveyed that they also do the same for sidewalk. It was observed that relying on property owners to fix the sidewalks is hurting the rest of the community because its not getting down.
Larry reviewed the current budget situation: $11,000 for repairs and $200,000 in the capital facilities plan but all for Administration. He observed that the Council and the Advisory Committees are paying more attention to the issue now. The Council at its retreat came up with a statement about needing to work on the sidewalk issue next year. It seems like the issue is being queued up for policy change – no change since 2004. Larry also shared a recent Seattle Times article that says over 70% of Olympia sidewalks are out of compliance with ADA.
Larry said neighborhoods speaking up to decision makers seems to be making a difference.
Melissa reminded people that neighborhoods can testify at the Council meeting when they consider the CFP. She said that they plan on starting to talk more next year and do long range planning but thinks there are some alternative actions that might happen before that. Many of her neighbors can’t afford to replace their sidewalk. She said maybe some cooperation between homeowners and the city. The Council doesn’t need hundreds of people talking to them about sidewalks but is there someway to organize ourselves to present representative viewpoints along specific aspects the issue? What is the right venue to work on it?
Larry said that that is a good question. It’s a big dollar issue and small bites are more likely. Unfortunately, the Seattle Times article said that ADA lawsuits have been the only effective prompt for city actions, not cooperation, which often does not result in the best policy. Creative ideas are out there. Larry related the idea from California that a lien be placed on properties that require the repair at the time of sale to transfer title. Many more repairs would happen than today.
Victor suggested that a subcommittee discuss it as he has been unhappy about the way the conversation of sidewalks have gone. He said we won’t be taken seriously if we take an unrealistic position. As the article said it would take $106 million to bring Olympia into compliance. He said he has some ideas on it. He observed that he has never heard anyone make a motion or proposal that is actionable on a reasonable basis for the city. He said he did a public records request asking for density map of all the city neighborhoods and the response was “we have nothing like that”. He suggested starting with where’s the density and the travel? We need to give the city something bite size that they can actually do and we can show some kind of results. The meetings are A+ on presentation and information but a D+ on actually planning on something to do. No motion, no agenda to talk about this stuff.
Larry suggested that Victor make a motion. The motion was made by Victor “to form a subcommittee to come up with proposals for a vote of the full Committee (CNA) about the sidewalk situation”. Melissa seconded the motion. All members present voted in favor. The call for volunteers was made and Melissa, Karen, Victor and Larry.
Bruce suggested that NWONA’s Board may want to participate.
The point of the meeting, Victor added, was not to reach agreement but bring back ideas to the full organization.
Melissa says she has several practical ideas from her neighbors and we should discuss this during our upcoming meetings.
The minutes were approved.
Dante added that the city is being inundated about the proposal for a new airport. Our County Commission is against it and has asked the CACC to remove it from consideration. Another letter is being circulated around. He shared his concerns about environment, wildlife and property impacts. He says he is in opposition to the proposal.
Larry pointed to last month’s presentation by Mr. Hendrickson where we concluded that the focus of our opposition should be the legislature and the Governor.
Charlotte Persons added that she is involved with a group taking up this issue. We need a NIMBY fight but she doesn’t think the legislature will care – any site proposed will oppose it. So she thinks that we should say no new mega airports anywhere. And be ready for a big fight. The decision by the CACC is in June, too late for this legislative session.
Bob Jacobs said that he would like Olympia Council to take a position as a whole. Dante said he has been thinking about that and the wheels are turning and you’ll see something on a future date.
Victor Minjares added his email on the chat for people interested in the subcommittee. Victor Minjares, SouthCap : victorminjares@gmail.com
Adjourned.
Council of Neighborhood Associations 