Vancouver city councilors raised concerns about suggested revisions to plans for allocating money from the city’s voter-created Affordable Housing Fund.
During Monday’s city council workshop, Peggy Sheehan, Vancouver’s community and economic development programs manager, presented an updated version of the Affordable Housing Fund’s administrative and financial plan that was originally created in June 2016.
The levy-supported fund, which Vancouver voters approved in November through Proposition 1, has to serve families that earn no more than 50 percent of the area median income, which would come out to $37,350 annually for a family of four. The city sent out requests for project proposals that either produce more housing or preserve housing for people in that income bracket, and received 10 applications.
A four-person committee reviewed the applications.
“It’s been a really fast turnaround,” Sheehan said. “We wanted to be able to respond to the current housing crisis and take advantage of the construction appetite that’s been happening in our community.”
Not just for rent
One of the suggested revisions in the fund’s administrative and financial plan is to clarify that housing assistance includes financial assistance not just for rent, but also for utilities and security deposits. Councilor Alisha Topper said she’s uncomfortable with taking funds designated for affordable housing and putting them toward utility assistance, however.
“I would hate to divert those funds from actual rent,” she said.
Sheehan said that people may need help with their rent or their utilities, and that Clark Public Utilities’ assistance program had to turn away qualified households because there aren’t enough funds.
“It’s a way to keep people in their apartments without having to pay their rent,” she said.
Another suggested revision is to cap the amount of money a single project can receive from the Affordable Housing Fund at $850,000. Topper said she considered the different-sized projects and wondered if a cap could be determined as a percentage of the total project cost. A large project should be able to apply for more money, she said.
‘Capital stack’
The Affordable Housing Fund is not intended to fully fund any project but rather to add other private or public financing sources, the “capital stack” as it’s called. Mayor Tim Leavitt said he wanted more information about a potential cap.
Some of the projects that applied for Affordable Housing Fund money are already under construction. So, the levy money would fill in those funding gaps. That includes money for four homes within a 10-home Evergreen Habitat for Humanity development that’s already under construction.
“We’re trying to move the needle here, and if all we’re doing is supporting projects that were going to happen already, we’re not moving the needle,” Councilor Ty Stober said.
Sheehan said while those projects may have still happened, having the city money attached to them stipulates that the housing units go toward people earning 50 percent of the area median income.
The city is going to send out requests for project proposals that have to do with homelessness prevention, which includes about $1.2 million in funding for housing assistance and $300,000 to build shelter capacity. Sheehan said she’s already spoken with the three licensed shelter owners in Vancouver, who relayed repairs and upgrades they need to make.
Topper said she doesn’t like the idea of using money to rehabilitate shelters since people were told the money would go toward increasing capacity.
“The people of this city are frustrated by the number of people living outside,” said Stober, who also doesn’t want the funds to be used for anything other than building additional shelter beds.
Leavitt said the issue may not be black and white and suggested getting a summary of the status of each shelter in Vancouver. Several councilors emphasized the need for a shelter housing single women.
“There is a need right now to clean up some problems if we’re going to have any capacity for winter,” Councilor Anne McEnerny-Ogle said.
The revisions will be brought back to the city council on Aug. 28.
