From Stark
The Bellingham City Council has agreed to modify a low-income housing levy measure to address financial issues raised by Mayor Kelli Linville and City Finance Director John Carter.
At their Monday, May 21 evening session, the council voted 7-0 to take another step toward a property tax increase measure that would provide money for two different low income housing funds, if a majority of voters approve in November. The larger fund would get about $2 million of the annual levy proceeds, and that money would be directed toward programs that would benefit people making less than 50 percent of the city’s median income. The other fund would get $1 million a year from the levy, and would pay for programs that would benefit people making up to 80 percent of the median income.
The council directed city staff to draft legal language to that effect for additional council consideration at their June 4, 2012 meeting. If council gives the modified levy proposal final approval, the tax hike would face city voters during the Nov. 6, 2012 general election.
At a Monday afternoon committee session, Linville and Carter warned the council that the levy as originally proposed would take a significant bite out of the city’s taxing capacity during its seven-year term.
Under state law, the city now has a total levy limit of $3.60 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. The city already collects about $2.35, leaving about $1.25 in remaining capacity. The housing levy as originally drafted would take another 36 cents out of its potential $1.25 in future taxing authority.
But state law also grants an exemption for housing levies aimed at the neediest people who make less than the median income. Levies for that purpose do not count against the limit.
Linville told the council that she preferred a levy that would be 100 percent for the neediest, and would therefore add no restrictions on the city’s ability to raise property tax revenues in future years. The mayor has repeatedly expressed concern about the future costs of environmental cleanup and street and utility projects on the waterfront. The city also faces eventual pension fund liabilities.
But the council chose a hybrid approach that would reduce, but not eliminate, the housing levy’s impact on city taxing capacity.
Linville said it’s up to the council and the voters to weigh the impacts and make those decisions. She added that she’s all for increased aid to the homeless. But she also wants to make sure that the council stays focused on the city’s overall financial situation.
“I would say that any decrease in the capacity for us to meet our unmet needs in the city is a concern,” Linville said.
She hopes the council will adopt a two-year budget process that would encourage more long-range thinking about revenues and expenses.
What a breath of fresh air the Linville admin is proving to be, what with her insistence on keeping a sharp pencil and looking at the big picture rather than jumping on the latest feel-good idea just because it feels good.
Lots to be said on both sides of this issue. That it’s inherently a good thing to help people in need is a principle with which perhaps few would disagree, but whether on balance the community as a whole will benefit from another such program is an empirical question that deserves more than superficial scrutiny. What about those already at the margin, for whom that extra $90/year is going to be tough to find?
And I’ll say it again, the council could enable something like 50 homes affordable to low-income families, at NO cost to the taxpayers, by approving the 410 units asked for by the owners of Padden Trails.
Hey Look,
A levy capacity!
Never mind the ice on the roadway, we have speed limit capacity!
OK,
Just tell me how any money will be ‘aimed at the neediest’ and I’ll pay up.
I hope it’s not like the other tax money we pay targeted at abstract nouns.
It is impressive that City Council worked out a scenario that gets full support. The whole community is stronger if all residents have access to affordable housing, and the mix of funding will put emphasis on serving those most in need, while still giving some flexibility to help first-time homebuyers or home repairs for senior homeowners. Overall, it is definitely a great package.
Here’s an interesting article about how California’s land use planning to stop sprawl has led to unaffordable housing, could Bellingham be an example of that too?
“Thanks to land-use planning and regulation, California has the least-affordable housing in the nation. The most affordable housing market in California is less affordable than 90 percent of the other housing markets in the U.S. These high prices impose hardships on low- and middle-income families and discourage employers from locating in the state…..
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-california-home-prices-are-so-high
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
John Stark – On a different subject. The recent news is that BP is bringing in thousands of employees from California to fill those new office buildings that they are building. The first number that we heard was 6000 employees, but most people believe that to be an exaggeration. These employees hope to be up here by September. These jobs could be considered “green jobs” because they are the commercial division of BP, not refining or transporting – office jobs.
So, my question is, “Why are we even considering approving a dirty coal terminal, with all its concomitant problems, that will only bring 89 dirty coal jobs to Whatcom County. Who needs the dirty coal?
BP is going to single handedly revive the Whatcom County economy before the coal terminal ever gets off the ground. Let’s not let it get off the ground.
I’d like to thank the Bellingham City Council for their support of the Bellingham Home Fund by putting it front of voters this fall. Thanks also to Mayor Linville for working on behalf of the issue of homelessness over the years.
Every child deserves a chance to succeed in life. A safe, stable, affordable home is a crucial piece of that success.
Do a search on urban infill in Seattle and take a look at the study that indicated that the anti-growth and urban planning efforts had added $200,000 to the price of homes in Seattle.
Then do another search on how well the Seattle residents who voted for these social engineering efforts, liked the results.
There was another article about Los Angeles and their new development rules for urban villages with no cars and neighborhood schools that required no busing. The regulators claimed that they had done a study and that this is what young families want. My comment was that if this is really what young families want, the government wouldn’t have to pass regulations requiring this and only this type of housing be built because market forces would take care of that.
One more comment, If all of you Bellingham social engineers are so determined to build more affordable housing in better locations, why did you have such a hissy fit over the project that Horizon Bank wanted to build on that hill in the south end of town?
Who are these Neediest in line for housing assistance?
Those living under foreclosure threats?
Those whose house payments are too high?
The family with the most kids?
A renter with a nasty landlord?
Those chronically impaired by alcohol or drugs or a lack of education or employment?
Who is needy and who decides where public tax money is spent meeting those needs?
I for one do not trust the system to ferret out the best uses for such an undefined fund.
Rubie- I think that you hit the nail on the head. This is an undefined expenditure that looks like a potential cash cow for special projects for special interests.
Make then tell you exactly how they are going to spend the money and exactly who will benefit.
In addition to the valid questions from Rubie, I’m interested to know how much of a bureaucracy will be created to develop, bid, build and administer these projects. After the bureaucracy is paid for, how much will be left over for actually helping people in need.
Will the money for the bureaucrats come from the tax monies collected or from some other already existing fund in the city’s coffers?
Since this is, in essence a charity funded from existing homeowners (voluntarily or not), as in all charities, we need to know the admin cost vs. the actual benefit to the recipient.
I have many more questions, but this is a start. Any takers from the city on giving some answers?