Legislative Updates

WASHINGTON APARTMENT ASSOCIATION

POSITION STATEMENT ON LOW-INCOME HOUSING

WAA supports the following low-income housing policies.
  • Low-income Housing: Supports state funding for low-income individuals in need of housing assistance.
  • Alternate Uses- Housing Projects and Vouchers: Housing Projects and Vouchers are an essential component of any significant housing strategy.
  • Housing Projects: Housing Projects are more suitable for tenants needing concentration and/or services, such as, drug rehabilitation programs, mental health programs, sex offenders, and other concentrated, service oriented placements.
  • Vouchers: Private Rental Market Vouchers are more suitable for de-concentration and expeditious placements of tenants without the need of special services. Private Rental Market Vouchers also provide the state the most efficient and cost effective alternative.
State policies for low-income housing that benefit from:
  • Deconcentrated/Integrated Housing with Choice: Placement of qualified low-income individuals into the most intergraded, deconcentrated settings that offer the tenant the widest choice of setting to accommodate employment opportunities, family connections, and education needs..
  • Timely/Efficient Placements: Movement of housing project waiting lists as expediently as possible by placing applicant into the private rental market where vacancies are available and not controlled by endeavors to keep publicly funded housing projects fully populated. (Note, this is the policy DSHS uses in confirming to the US Supreme Court Olmsted decision requiring integration of people with disabilities).
  • Efficient and Cost Effective Performance Measures: State Performance Measures and audits that assure the most ‘efficient and cost effective’ means of delivering low-income housing:
    • Administrators: Comparison of efficiencies and cost of administrators placing applicants in housing units, including the efficiency in time taken to place applicants into housing units, and the charges by administrators per placement.
    • Settings: Comparison of efficiencies and costs of placement settings (Private Residential Units versus HA Projects and other concentrated housing), including the number of placements received, and the total rental costs per unit (including subsidy, development, construction, and capital costs, plus lost/gained revenues to government.

COMPARISON OF PRIVATE VOUCHERS AND PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECTS


CONSIDERATIONS VOUCHERS PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECTS
POLICY
Concentration of Low-Income Tenants Deconcentrated Concentrated
Provision of Services Housing only Housing & services (health providers, etc)
Choice Wide choice of private rental housing Limited to Housing Projects
Employment Opportunities Wide variety of employment opportunities Limited to surrounding area of HP
Availability Varies on county vacancy factor Varies on project vacancies
FISCAL
Taxes/Exemptions 2005-07 State & Local Savings
Real Estate taxes/special assessments Targeted urban centers $2,880,000 (1) Tax Exempt ? (2); PILOT fees (2) ?
Subsidized housing/In-Lieu Excise/ Leasehold No $14,644,000 (3)
Low-income rental housing Property/Nonprofit Organizations No $8,686,000 (4)
Emergency or transitional housing/Property Nonprofit Organizations No $3,535,000 (5)
Total Cost To Government $2,883,000 $23,683,000 +
Subsidies
State Subsidy for Rent Cost = subsidy Cost = subsidy
Operating
Administrative Costs Voucher Administration Voucher and Project Administration
Maintenance Costs No Yes
Management Costs No Yes
Development/Construction
Development Costs No Yes
Capital Costs No Yes
Placement Cost Efficiency
Families/units housed by $2 recording fee 849 families or 10,000 unit months ?????


1.       RCW 84.14.20 Targeted public housing/Property – Private Property/ $2,883,000


2.       RCW 35.82.210 Tax exemption and payments in lieu of taxes (DOR report 35.82.210 Public corporations); For example, in 2002 the City of Richland received an average of $12.50 per tax-exempt home annually whereas a comparable privately owned home paid $945 per year; that is, 75 times more in revenue for the counties. The city received $1,123 in PILOT payments over the nine-year period. IF the tax-exempt homes were privately owned, the property owners would have paid a total of about $183,600 in taxes over the past decade. He said the city, schools and fire districts lost and estimated $173,000 in tax revenue. 7/29/02 By Mary Hopkin, Herald Valley Bureau


3.       RCW 82.29A.130 (3) Subsidized housing/In=Lieu Excise/Leasehold/ $14,644,000


4.       RCW 84.36.560 Low-income rental housing Property/Nonprofit Organizations $8,686,000


5.       RCW 84.36.043 Emergency or transitional housing/Property Nonprofit Organizations/ $3,535,000


Issue of taking on less debt keeps lawmakers in town

Dear WAA Members:

Just an “update.”

The issue of limiting the state debt limit is being considered in Olympia. The latest proposal is to lower the current gap of 9% of state revenue to 7% debt reduction, over time.

This approach will impact the state budget significantly.

Many thanks.

Mark Gjurasic

Public Affairs of Washington, LLC

mgjurasic@comcast.net

(360) 481-6000

Issue of taking on less debt keeps lawmakers in town

JORDAN SCHRADER and BRAD SHANNON | Staff writer . Published May 12, 2011

Both sides of a debate over debt are blaming the other for keeping state lawmakers in Olympia.

The question of whether to tighten restrictions on state debt continues to hold up approval of a bipartisan state construction budget. It kept roughly $1.3 billion in bonds from coming to a House vote this week.

With lawmakers’ 30-day overtime period more than half over, the debt limit is just one of the roadblocks in front of the exits. Lawmakers are also stymied by details of the more than $5 billion in cuts and transfers that need to be made in the operating budget, and what to do to rein in the cost of workers’ compensation benefits.

Republicans and sympathetic Senate Democrats are holding the budgets hostage until they get their wish list, said House Capital Budget Chairman Hans Dunshee.

“They’ve got all these ideological, external issues that they’re shoving, and they’re going to keep us here because of that,” said Dunshee, a Snohomish Democrat.

Dunshee is focused mainly on resisting the constitutional amendment to lower the state cap on debt to 7 percent of state revenue – down from 9 percent – which has opposition from the construction industry and unions but is backed by Senate Republicans, Senate Democrats and House Republicans.

“All three caucuses agree, and my understanding is the votes are there for it, too – so let’s get it done.” House GOP leader Richard DeBolt said. “If we’re going to get out of here, Hans Dunshee has to set aside his ego and start negotiating.”

They are already negotiating, say Dunshee and Sen. Derek Kilmer of Gig Harbor, the Democratic capital budget chairmen who are at odds with each other over the debt limit. Lawmakers met Wednesday to talk about a proposal Dunshee offered. They declined to give details, but Kilmer said Dunshee expressed openness to “do something that would reduce how much debt the state’s taking on over time.”

Supporters of the lower cap want to reduce a debt load they say is too high – with interest payments approaching $2 billion or 6 percent of the main budget – and crowding out spending on other priorities such as schools and health care. But construction projects paid for with the borrowed money create jobs, and the construction industry says the debt level is manageable and isn’t affecting the state’s credit. Positions have been staked out:

. The committee chaired by Dunshee hasn’t voted on the debt reduction amendment.

. Senators, Kilmer said, are willing to ditch most of this year’s proposed borrowing if it’s not tied to long-term debt reduction. They could move forward with a much smaller bond budget of a few hundred million dollars.

. House Republicans are in the minority but have leverage because a supermajority is needed to approve bonds. That allowed them to block the bond budget this week. DeBolt said they want the debt limit change done first, because it will change borrowing levels – although it largely affects future years, not the upcoming 2011-2013 budget period.

State Treasurer Jim McIntire said he thinks the standoff can be resolved. There’s a lot of room for compromise between the House and Senate positions, he said.

Still, halfway through their special session called to deal with the budget emergency, some are asking whether lawmakers are facing the possibility of double overtime.

“Right now we’re looking at it,” Dunshee said.

But Gov. Chris Gregoire said Wednesday she wouldn’t call another 30-day session without a budget agreement.

Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/05/11/1648497/issue-of-taking-on-less-debt-k eeps.html#ixzz1MB6To5Nj

_____

No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG – www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1375 / Virus Database: 1500/3640 – Release Date: 05/15/11