Vancouver City Council. Today
is Monday, August 3rd, 2026,
and we are going to be
discussing the Vancouver Public
Works Operation campus with
some supplemental information.
City Manager, did you want to
kick this off?
>> Yeah, yeah. Thank you. Mayor,
I'd just like to welcome the
staff back after this item was
tabled by the City Council with
questions. I hope we've had a
chance to provide the
supplemental information that
you were looking for. And with
that, we'll go right into the
second presentation.
>> Good afternoon. My name is
Jean singer. I am the division
manager for facilities capital
projects in the Department of
General Services. With me is
Jason Olsen. He's a project
manager in our group, and he's
the project manager for this
project. And we're here to
share some supplemental
information on the Vancouver
Public Works operation campus.
So our agenda for today is to
review our charter alignment
and City Council engagement on
the project. Over the past
several years. We're going to
review project funding and some
past estimates. We're going to
go through our Gkm selection
process. Gkm stands for General
Contractor Construction Manager.
And then we're going to talk
about some cost reductions and
cost management protocols that
we have in place, and as well
as the existing construction
status. And then there's an
opportunity for discussion. So
charter alignment, a policy
charter was created for this
project. It was an opportunity
to demonstrate how policy can
be transformational in the
community and reflected in the
built environment. We had four
focus areas that were to be
integrated throughout the
design their resiliency and
safety, environmental
sustainability, equity and
inclusion, and finally, capital
planning, asset management and
financial policies in alignment
with the project charter. City
Council touch points have
delivered updates on project
elements and approaches that
were crafted to be in alignment
with those focus areas. We also
provided updates on scope,
schedule, budget, and community
outreach. We also took those
times to introduce project
teams members. We introduced
Tim Buck, who is the operations
manager. Public works will be
serving the community out of
this site. We introduced TCF
architecture as the lead
architect to share their vast
experience in designing these
unique facilities, and we
brought Skanska last year to
meet council so that they. You
could see that just the team is
integrated and just see the
faces that are involved. So
this is a timeline of our
engagement with council. The
overall timeline shares the
different design and
construction phases along with
council updates and actions.
And so I'll describe the
timeline. The first row shows
the years starting in 2021
through this year of 2026. The
next row is design phase, and
the design phase is broken up
into different components. We
had two years of preliminary
design, two years and a half of
schematic design, and then we
are in the last components,
which is DD, which is design
development, and then
construction documents. Design
development is really the end
of the design. There is no more
scope that is added. When we
get to this point in the
construction document phase,
we're really just looking at
creating a detailing and
coordinating the disciplines
and really executing that
design on paper into
constructability. So some
examples would be the
electrical engineers have to
figure out how many circuits
you need on a panel, the
plumbing design, how many
valves you need in certain
areas, roofing details flashing.
So that's the last part of
design that we are in right now.
And the next line describes
construction. It took about a
year to get our contractor on
board. We started that in the
third quarter of 2024, and we
completed that around June of
2025. We were able to
immediately move into
construction once the
contractor was on board,
because this project is over
three years of construction,
and we wanted to make sure that
we were being aggressive enough
to take advantage of the design
work we had done, and then
getting rolling design packages
out since escalation is so high.
Still. The next line is about
council updates. The project
charter was adopted in
September of 2021. That's
indicated indicated with a dark
diamond on the screen. And then
since over the last six years,
including right now, we have
come to council nine different
times with updates on the
project. The updates were
typically once a year up until
about 2025, at which point we
came three times because the
design was getting more towards
construction. And this year
we've come to council twice.
And the last line talks about
council actions. There's been
many council actions on this
project related to professional
services contracts, but
focusing just on the ones
related to construction. The
first contract was executed in
June of 2025. Subsequent to
that, we have come to the
council seven different times
for amendments which execute
various components of
construction. The last time
will come would be in December
of this year. Next slide.
Project funding. So the project
is fully funded. The funding
funding is a combination of
both cash reserves and revenue
bonds. Public works has
affirmed that the current
project cost has been included
in the rate model, along with
all of their anticipated future
projects. They see the target
increase rate is at about 4.5%,
which aligns with past practice
and would be their future
target as well. Project
estimates reviewed. So we went
through an interesting exercise.
We reviewed the original
estimate when there was a
decision in 2018 to move from
the existing site to a new site.
No site had been selected. A
project estimate was created
that estimated that the project
would cost $126 million in 2021.
Construction. That estimate
also had a number for 2026,
construction of $150 million
that was independent of any
site. Since then, we've had
historic escalation of 37% from
2020 to 2026, and that's
according to the construction
index that's provided by
Mortenson for the Portland
metro area. If you take that
2021 number of 126 million, you
apply that escalation, that
number becomes $176 million in
today's dollars. That is again
without a site. When you add in
$20 million for site mitigation
regulatory requirements and the
high level of environmental
sustainability this project
provides, as well as a $20
million contingency we've been
holding that would give you a
project cost of $212 million.
That means our actual estimate
is within about 6% of a number
that was created in 2018. So
that's actually pretty good.
And I'm going to turn it over
to Jason to talk through the
rest of.
>> Good evening again, Jason
Olsen. I'm the project manager
on this for a couple of years
now. I wanted to talk a little
bit about our GC selection
process. So just a reminder
about the process that the team
went through to procure our
general contractor for this
project. Procurement began with
a request for qualifications
and went out around the end of
2020 for a formula of three
scoring criteria was published
in that RFQ, which included the
Statement of Qualifications
interview and then the final
fee proposal. We had eight
general contractors that
proposed on the project, which
you can see on the screen and
to the right, indicates kind of
their basis of operations. You
can see seven were from the
Portland area, and we had none
from the southwest Washington
area that that proposed, a
seven person team independently
scored their proposals, of
which we shortlisted three
firms to move forward to the
interview process. Following
interviews, each firm was given
a second score. All three firms
were then given the opportunity
to submit a final final fee
proposal, which included their
fee percentage on cost of work
plus specified general
conditions. Skanska was very
aggressive in their pricing for
this project. Highlighted
recent local work in their
construction of Mountain View
High School for Evergreen
Public Schools and emerged from
that composite scoring criteria
as our selected Gcmm, who was
unanimously approved by council
back in 2020 5th June of 25.
Skanska has provided tremendous
value to the team since they
came on board and is fully
supported and proactively work
to fulfill city values and
focus areas of this project. In
terms of some of the cost
reductions we've done to date.
So over the life of the project
to date, we have targeted cost
reductions totaling nearly $30
million during the early phases
of design prior to Skanska even
coming on board, the team had
identified roughly $17 million
in scope reductions through
reduced square footage, program
reductions, reduced covered
parking, reduced equipment,
budget and identification of
scope that could be built later.
Once the service area expanded
and funding became available.
Since Skanska has come on board
and design progressed, an
additional 12 million in value
engineering has been identified
and executed. Value engineering
is not a moment in time, but a
continual process throughout
design, with the goal of
finding cost savings without
impacting operations. This is
where the true value of having
our contractor on board is
really realized. You know, the
team has done a remarkable job
of collectively proposing areas
of cost savings and target
value design supported with
real market cost estimation. So
that's what we don't have early
design. What we have now, we
can really go to market and
really understand what is the
actual cost of these things.
But so it's proven has shown
savings across all facets of
the project, including our
pivot back to tilt concrete,
site reduced site costs,
reduced Hvac and electrical
costs in terms of some of the
things we're doing for cost
management and cost controls,
we have several tools in our
toolbox that we continue to
continue to actively use
throughout the design process
that all work together to
ensure we're able to deliver
the project to the current
approved budget. That was
highlighted in the May 11th,
2026, memo to Council. An
example of target value design.
After our last estimate, we
identified glazing, ceilings,
wall finishes, things like that
as as areas to remove 20 to 30%
of the estimated value. TCF,
our architect, was was tasked
with identifying where to
remove that cost. We continue
to hold four buckets of
contingencies totaling
approximately $20 million,
which includes escalation to
the point of guaranteed maximum
price in December. We continue
to proactively monitor our risk
register, which is an active
log of outstanding construction
activities that could impact
project budget. A value is
assigned to each of those items,
with a probability of it
affecting our cost becoming a
cost item. Every month we
review this log with with
Skanska to identify those risk
items that are behind us and
those that still could
potentially impact the project
moving forward. We have
identified bid alternates for
scope. The project would like
to execute should pricing come
back favorable on bid day. And
as I mentioned, value
engineering has been an ongoing
part of the process. For
example, we recently cut 30% of
the skylights from the project.
We worked with Timbuk and found
further reductions in our
equipment budget. We reduced
the number of sub bays in both
our fuel station and our wash
bay on site, and saved $350,000
by substituting PVC for slab
cast iron for our waste and
vent piping. So a little bit in
the weeds there. But just to
give you a concrete, concrete
examples of how we're actively
working to reduce costs on this
project, moving forward to
competitive bidding. So we
outlined in the July memo
recently provided to council
all of the bids and contract
estimates, amendments, I should
say, that have been approved
and executed to this point. All
of the bid packages executed at
this point have followed state
regulations defined in the
revised Code of Washington.
Most bid packages have had
multiple bidders, and all but
two have come in well under our
engineer's estimate, one of
which was the pre-engineered
metal buildings that we
rejected. And, and that's,
that's the point that we would
switch back to tilt
construction. Every contract
amendment amendment is reviewed
by our legal counsel as a check
and balance to ensure we are
complying with state
regulations and contract
obligations. Skanska has done
an excellent job of outreach to
our local and disadvantaged
contracting communities,
providing educational sessions
on how to assemble bid packages
around how the contracting
works on the gqm process. Our
our own state requirements, I
should say, require a 15%
apprenticeship apprenticeship
goal. Skanska currently sits at
about 8% with the limited scope
that's currently under
construction and is well on
target to exceed our 15% goal.
Also mentioned in the July memo,
Skanska has received bids from
an awarded contracts to many of
our local subcontractors and
including one of our
disadvantaged sub
subcontractors. To date,
construction status. So as you
know, we've been under
construction on this project
site for about nine months now
with the council approved
construction value of
approximately $15 million,
we've completed approximately
$5.2 million worth of work,
which includes hazardous
material removal, construction
of our one of our large
retaining walls on the
northeast side of the site,
buffer tree planting along our
residential neighbors and
removal of all of our
unsuitable soils on site. So
there are a lot of, there was a
lot of trash and stuff and bad
soils that we had to remove. So
those are some of the areas
also with the highest risk that
are now behind us. Currently,
we're nearly complete with 195
bore geo exchange field that
lies underneath our main
parking lot, that is designed
to supply heating and cooling
to all of our occupied
buildings on the campus.
Construction of the retaining
wall on the northwest side of
our site is under construction,
along with the beginning of
foundations for two of our
structures buildings H and J.
That's what the image on this
slide indicates is. Those are
the drill rigs that have been
on site for the last couple of
months, drilling all those
holes for our geo exchange
through Mach number six, which
was the most current amendment
approved by council to the one
being voted on tonight. We have
another 5.1 million in
contracted upcoming
construction work, including
all the ground improvements
that are underneath all of our
occupied structures that work
scheduled to begin this month.
And then finally, just talking
about cost of delay, there will
be a significant cost to stop
this construction, at this
point. So the design documents
are nearly complete, scheduled
for delivery to Skanska,
Skanska at the end of the month,
at which they will then take to
assemble all remaining bid
packages and deliver us a
guaranteed maximum price by
December. And that will be the
final amendment that we bring
before council that will
complete all bidding for the
project. In preparation for the
recent memo provided to Council
in this workshop, we asked
Skanska to estimate the cost of
work stoppage should this
amendment not move forward.
This evening, that estimate is
approximately $700,000 per
month, most of which is just
escalation by stopping work. So
it's our hope that we provided
the information and supporting
documentation needed needed to
approve this contract amendment
this evening to keep the
project moving. So with that,
that is the end of our
presentation and welcome
questions.
>> Thank you very much.
Councilors. Comments or
questions? Councilor Fox. Well.
>> I know I wasn't one of the
council members that thought it
needed to be delayed at all,
but I do appreciate the
information that you've put
together to provide that full
picture. I had asked staff,
actually, since our last
meeting, just to give me a
rundown of the meetings where
we've made decisions to find
out which council members were
present at the meeting, because
I was trying to understand
where the disconnect had
occurred as well. But I do want
to say that, you know, I bring
to this dais a background in
construction. I was a
construction estimator, and I
do very much understand the
meanings behind these, the
terminologies of the design
percent design that you're at
today. And then I'm also glad
to see that in 2021, I'd only
been on the council for a year
at the time, but I do remember
we had a lot of robust
discussion around the role of
council and the role of staff
moving this project forward so
that we could avoid what was
then in the charter pointed out
to us that it could be $7
million a year. If each year we
delay taking action on, on
building this, this operation
center. And so those things are
all front of mind. When I voted
back in 2021 on the project
charter, I've also been present
at every single one of these
decision points that you've
pointed out on the slide. And I,
I just really do appreciate
seeing the level of
professionalism that's been
brought to us every single time.
One of the things that I also
wanted to highlight that I
appreciated seeing again,
perhaps for those that haven't
been here for the last three
years, right? Or gosh, longer
than that five years. Right.
Has been the savings. So
knowing as a taxpayer out there,
knowing that the work of this
team has saved us $29 million
is really impressive,
especially considering the
price escalations as well. So I
just wanted to say thank you
for putting this together. It's
very well done. And I will be
supporting this moving forward.
During our meeting tonight.
>> Councilor Perez.
>> Thank you for the
information and for coming back
with what were some important
questions for our taxpayers.
And so knowing that this wasn't
going to be further delayed,
that we had today to be able to
have a more informed discussion?
I appreciate that, and thank
you very much.
>> Councilor Harless.
>> Yeah, just gratitude again.
And it's also my understanding
there is no delay. So just
being able to come back with
these additional information so
everybody can feel confident
and being able to move forward
is greatly appreciated. So
thank you for coming back.
>> Councilor Hanson.
>> Thank you, mayor. Thank you
for bringing this forward. You
know, it's a tough one as
you're looking at cost
escalations and saying, well,
what's the limit? And, you know,
you definitely don't want to
let your number out the door.
But it's we live in an
environment right now where
we're seeing cost escalations
in construction. And it's
difficult to estimate that. I
do fully understand that and
appreciate that. But if we
weren't asking the questions,
who would? So thank you, mayor.
>> Jean and Jason, thank you so
very much. No additional
questions or comments. Thank
you. Let's move in to the
development activity update
with Patrick.
>> Good afternoon, mayor, city
Council, I'm Patrick Quinton.
I'm the director of Economic
Prosperity and Housing. I'm
joined by Chad Aiken, who's our
community development director.
We are here as a follow up to a
presentation that we gave in in
April on development activity
for 2025. And so we have,
follow up answers to your a
bunch of questions and then
want to continue the
conversation on some of the
proposed actions. So as you can
see from the agenda, we will
recap as best as we remember
the conversation back in April.
And then, Chad will, will
present, we have tons of data
and we wanted it down to four
slides to, to, to, present some
comparison with other, other
regional markets and other
national markets, just to give
a sense for how other markets
are experiencing the same
market conditions. We're also
going to follow up on questions
about kind of what is our
overall strategy and how we
prioritizing the actions that
we're taking. And then want to
talk about some of the work
that we've done to date, which
I think you, you, you've seen
before, but then also finish up
with some recommendations,
particularly around our
affordable housing pipeline.
And then obviously, have time
for discussion and questions.
So as I mentioned, our, the,
the, our notes from the, the
workshop back in April really
highlighted these three main
topics. I know there were some,
some other other particular
questions that will will cover
later in the presentation as
well. But the three major
questions that we took away
from the workshop were, one,
how does what Vancouver is
going through in terms of the
decline in development activity
that we've seen in the past
couple of years? In 2025, in
particular, was a particularly
low point. How does that
compare with other cities
within within the Pacific
Northwest and how does it
compare nationally? The second
question was, and, and I
believe that the term theory of
change was used by, by council
member Stober who's not here,
but, it was, kind of what is
the strategy like, like the,
like, how do the actions you're
taking lead to the type of
outcomes that we're looking for?
And so we've tried to structure
some information around that.
And then leading from that is
an, okay, what if, if, if
that's our strategy, what are
the highest priority actions
that we are taking as a city
and why? So that's how we've
approached this, follow up
presentation. If there are
other issues that we don't
address, we hopefully will
leave time for that at the end.
To, to answer those as well. So
with that, I'm going to turn it
over to Chad.
>> Yeah. Thanks, Patrick.
Diving right in. Thanks. Diving
into some of the data rich
slides. In April, council had
asked for data that compares
the housing permitting trends
we're seeing in Vancouver with
other cities in the region and
nationally. This slide shows
how Vancouver stacks up against
other cities in the Pacific
Northwest. Regarding the number
of multifamily residential
building permits as a percent
of existing housing stock,
which allows for an apples to
apples comparison, rather than
simply reporting out on the
number of permits or the number
of units, we looked at
permitting activity year over
year. Going back to 2019,
Vancouver's permit activity
relative to existing housing is
represented by the far left
column, and then going left to
right are Portland, Portland,
Vancouver, Hillsboro, Spokane,
Spokane Valley, Seattle, Tacoma,
Bellevue, and the far right
column is Olympia Lacey,
Tumwater region. Until 2025,
Vancouver outperformed housing
production relative to its
current housing stock compared
to all other Pacific Northwest
cities. Vancouver's strong
performance, even through the
pandemic, was heavily
influenced by residential
development at the waterfront
in the downtown. Even though we
have observed a slowdown in
multifamily permits starting in
late 2024, Vancouver's housing
production still outperformed
both the Portland and Seattle
regions as a percent of
existing housing stock. In 2025.
Next slide. This slide compares
housing production to
population growth for the same
areas in the Pacific Northwest
as the as the previous slide.
In other words, by what percent
is the housing stock growing
compared to the population on
this chart? The higher the
number on the left hand side,
the better it is for meeting
our housing goals and
accommodating future population
growth, which also creates
downward pressure on rent
growth. What we're seeing here
is that in Vancouver, Seattle
and Portland areas, which are
the top three lines, housing
stock has increased 3 to 5%
more than the population has
increased since 2019. In 2025,
housing production fell in
Vancouver. We saw this, clearly
in our permitting numbers,
which is causing a slight dip.
We're hoping that will start to
trend back up. Spokane and
Olympia housing markets, which
are the bottom two lines, are
producing housing at about the
same rate as their population
has been increasing. So they're
really not gaining any ground.
More than their population has
been increasing. The main
takeaway here is that while
Vancouver is tracking with
Portland and Seattle markets to
meet our housing goals under
GMA address the current deficit
in housing units and begin to
see rents stabilize, we would
want to see the housing stock
increase 6 to 8%, more than the
than the population for this
time period. Now, looking at
some national, comparisons,
basically takes the same
housing permit data that was in
the first chart. It compares
housing permit data versus
existing housing stock, but on
a national scale, we looked at
four other metro areas and
compared their performance with
Vancouver's the, the real
standout here is Austin. It's
the taller green column has
outperformed most cities in
terms of housing production,
and has seen a corresponding
decrease in their cost of
housing. Austin and Phoenix.
Phoenix is. The yellow column
continued to see a high
percentage of residential
building permits compared to
existing housing stock. Both
cities have adopted or
maintained development friendly
zoning, such as small lots, low
minimum parking requirements,
etc. and have less stringent
stringent state building code
requirements than Washington
state and have more available
land to develop. So all of
those are contributing to some
of the performance we're seeing
from those two regions. San
Francisco, which is the orange
column, has had the lowest
permit activity as a percentage
of existing housing stock over
the of the five areas, possible
reasons are land and
construction costs are
prohibitive, and land is not as
readily available as it is in
Phoenix or Austin. Plus, the
regulatory environment is much
more restrictive. Vancouver and
Denver fall somewhere in the
middle of the pack to meet our
housing goals in the
Comprehensive Plan by 2040 and
address the existing housing
housing shortage, we would want
to see the number of
residential permits be more
than about 3.5% of the existing
housing stock. Now, taking a
look at, the Vancouver versus
the same four metropolitan
areas, this shows the
difference between the percent
of housing growth to the
percent of population growth.
Austin, which is the top trend
line, is outperforming the four
other areas, with housing
increasing 14% more than their
population is increasing. Since
2015, Austin has added 120,000
new units, which represents
about a 30% increase in their
overall housing stock. Phoenix
and Colorado. The next two
trend lines down are adding
housing at about 4 to 6% more
than the population is growing
when compared nationally.
Vancouver is currently falling
short on production relative to
population growth. Drastic over
production is needed to have a
meaningful impact on housing
affordability, and we have a
slide later in the presentation
that talks more about some of
the things that we're
implementing to promote
increased housing production.
>> Thank you Chad. Oh, sorry.
>> Thanks, Chad. So now I want
to move into the to the part of
the agenda that's talking about
our theory of change or our
kind of our what's our strategy
for, for trying to address some
of the market conditions. And,
you know, once again, there's a
lot of different variables that
go into, to, why housing gets
built or how housing gets built.
And so one of the things we
chose to do here was to, to
demonstrate visually, the
different cost factors,
different cost variables. And
so as you can see, the main
drivers of, of the cost of
production really are in this,
in this kind of the blue
squares here, but just the hard
construction cost, that's the
cost of lumber, the cost of
materials, you know, whatever
goes in there, cost of labor.
So that's the biggest driver of
cost. And where projects need
to actually build parking,
parking is a significant cost
as well, both in terms of land
as well as the cost to, to, to
construct whatever type of
facility. And then you have
things like site prep and
whatnot and the hard cost
category. And then the next big
category is land and soft costs.
Soft costs are all the
predevelopment, architectural
engineering, due diligence.
Those costs, they actually
amount to a significant part of
the overall development
proforma, but certainly a lot
less than, than what we can see
on the hard cost side. And then
then land, which can vary a lot,
but land generally is, is a
smaller percentage. And then in
the lower corner you have the
remaining costs, financing fees,
profit. And you can see that
collectively those account for
about 10% of overall project
costs. So this is the trying to
take. What we see in pro forma
is kind of what the developers
look at and try and make the
numbers work and show that in
visual form, as kind of these
are the, these are the
different levers that we have
to pull. If we then flip those
into the next chart, which
shows them arrayed in a matrix,
the, the bottom axis really is
the degree of city control,
meaning these are things that
we actually have control over.
And on the y axis going up,
things that actually have an
impact on housing production.
The, the area that we're most
focused on is in the upper
right quadrant of this. These
are things that we control and
that we think have a
significant impact on, on
housing production. So things
like land use. And we'll talk a
little bit later in the
presentation on the comp plan,
which you know all about, but
the comp plan really is the
foundation for our efforts to
improve housing supply. So land
use is plays a big role in the
value of land and how land can
be, how you can maximize
production from land, direct
investment, things like our
affordable housing fund and
other dollars that we can put
directly into projects that
lowers financing costs, land
costs. So when we can put land
into a project, we can lower
the cost of land for a project.
If we remove parking minimums,
that removes that, things like
multifamily tax exemption,
other ways that we reduce the
tax burden that reduces the
amount that needs to be
financed. And then when we can
make material changes in our
building code, that reduces the
cost of construction. And so
we'll talk in a little bit
about changes that we've made
in terms of six story wood
frame construction requirements
and single stairwell. That's
really the sweet spot for us in
terms of things that we control.
And we've color coded those on
the right so that they
correspond to the previous
chart in terms of those buckets.
But most of what we control
sits in the in the orange and
gray, the things that are that
are not in the hard cost side
of things, what we really don't
control are the things you see
in the upper left part of the
matrix. These are the real
drivers of what happens in the
housing market. And so
unfortunately, we are we're
oftentimes not really in
control of the broader forces.
But that's you can see, you
know, interest rates, cost of
materials, cost of labor,
building codes, energy codes
that are at the state level or
outside of our control market
conditions. Those are all
things that we don't control.
And so we're not we really
can't spend much time focusing
on those. We try and focus on
the things that are that are
within our control. And then
the last thing I'll highlight
is just, I don't want to
understate the importance of
the work that we do in keeping
fees to a minimum or, or
reducing permit times which,
which, which affect the cost of
financing because it shortens
project time or ways that we
can help with site due
diligence. If it's sites that
we control, those do have an
impact. But but as you can see
from the previous chart, they
really are a small percentage
of the overall cost of projects.
And so, before we get into our
actions, we just wanted to
highlight some of the, some
case studies. So part of, you
know, the, the last two slides
are really, really conceptual
talking about, you know, how,
theoretically you can impact,
housing markets. And so we
thought we would, bring forth
some examples. And Chad's
already talked a lot about
Austin, but, Austin and
Minneapolis are really, if you,
if you go online and search and
in the literature that we see a
lot of, they're the two markets
that are called out most
frequently in terms of policy
leading to positive outcomes in
the housing market. And so, as
Chad mentioned, Austin, made a
number of significant policy
changes, mainly on the land use
side. So up zoning land,
particularly in commercial
corridors, reducing parking
minimums, but also adding
significant density bonuses for
affordable housing. And that
the timing of that was perfect
in terms of Austin's kind of
job growth. And so they
attracted a lot of new
investment, a lot of new
residents, and had had
explosive growth, and
significant new housing
production. Austin has had the
most noticeable drop in rents
in, in the United States, in
any big market in the United
States, or like the case study
that people look at when they
say, if you build enough supply,
you actually can materially
impact rents. And you saw from
the graph that that Chad showed
you that that their housing
production significantly
outpaced their population
growth. And that's the level of
production you need to get to,
to really have that kind of
impact. I do want to say that
Austin has this interesting mix
of progressive policies, land
use policies, other development
policies, and, kind of the
Texas land use framework, which,
which, which provides a lot of
open land for development. So,
those conditions may be unique
to a place like Austin.
Minneapolis was the other place.
The other place that shows up a
lot in Minneapolis was one of
the first big cities to do the
kind of systematic zoning that
we just did with our comp plan.
So they were one of the first
big cities to to upzone all
their single family property
allow for, for, for multifamily
development through much of the
city. And then they, as you can
see on the slide, they address
a number of the other similar
things around parking minimums
and building heights and, and
zoning on commercial corridors.
So Minneapolis, didn't have the
same kind of explosive growth
that you saw in Austin, but
they had a noticeable impact on
their, on their housing costs
and rents and statistically
relevant in this case, they
slowed rent growth and slowed
the cost of housing compared to
other, you know, other areas in
the Midwest. And, and they've
documented a reduction in
homelessness. So definitely a,
a place that people look to a
lot and say, this is the impact
of policy. I really want to
point out the, the dates are in
here for a reason. This took
Minneapolis as played out over,
you know, over a decade. And
now they're 15 years into it.
Austin's played out over a
decade. And then the new
example, the last example, New
Rochelle, which is a much
smaller scale example. So
unfortunately, these things do
take time. And our, the massive
change in our land use system
is, you know, is early enough
that we're, we do have to have,
have some patience in terms of
seeing the type of growth, that
these other markets have
experienced. New Rochelle is,
is a different kind of example.
It's more of a redevelopment
example. They, they were very
proactive with, with very
concentrated, ownership of land
near a very significant transit
station that fed into New York
City and they, saw significant
new development there and
slowed rent growth, and also
attracted a lot of new
residents and actually increase
the diversity of the city as a
result. So, different kind of
example, but a toolbox that we
also have as well with our
redevelopment, tools. So you
have seen this slide before and
it's always just like to remind
everybody that we, we've been
taking a series of actions in,
in, in recent years to try and
address the decline in housing
production. And I just want to,
as I show this slide, I just
want to remind kind of tie it
back to the previous slide. So
the actions we've taken,
multifamily tax exemption
directly addresses, the, the,
the tax part of that pro forma,
which reduces financing costs,
system development charges,
impact fees, delaying that. It
also directly impacts financing
costs, reducing development
review times is once again
reduces the financing costs.
And then our work on the single
stairwell code, the single
story wood frame construction,
those are direct changes in our
local building code that, that
will produce savings. On the
construction side. We haven't
had projects yet, but we've
been told by our development
partners that they do see those
as producing cost savings. And
then lastly, but certainly once
again, this is the foundation
is the adoption of the
comprehensive plan. Is is in
the next slide, Chad will walk
walk you through. That is
really the most significant
action we have taken in, you
know, the past probably decade
in terms of trying to encourage
new housing production.
>> Yeah. Great segue. So some,
some measures that are related
to the comp plan that we've
implemented now, the comp plan
has, is officially adopted it,
the comment period ended. The
new development code is on the
books. It is in effect as of
today actually. So, we through
the comp plan council removed
parking minimums. That's a huge
benefit to reducing costs and
in new development. We, as you
know, we allow more housing as
of right, there are no longer,
density maximums. It's the
building height and setbacks
that control what the density
can be on a particular lot.
Also up to six units can be
developed on, on a single
family lot. So, opened up much
more land for, for development
opportunity. We're also working
on calibrating our
infrastructure requirements for
middle housing. As you can
imagine, adding six units where
the system may be contemplated,
one unit will have some knock
on effects on the system. And
so we're working with our
public works department to
figure out exactly what those
infrastructure requirements
need to be. Under state law, we
can't treat, middle housing
differently than single family
housing. So we're, we're trying
to thread a needle there and
make sure that, that the
systems can handle, the housing
that will be coming. We're also
establishing dedicated
permitting and review team for
middle housing. That's, that
will be the same team that,
that handles all of these
projects. So they're going to
gain the expertise in dealing
with these unique lots and, and
new, new types of development
to make sure the process goes
smoothly. As you know, we're
working on, changes to our
impact fee structure, state
laws, now requiring us to base
impact fees on the numbers of
number of bedrooms as opposed
to just the units, the number
of units. And also we're
promoting a pre-approved plans
through our master, same as
program. We're taking a program
that that has existed for a
number of years, which is,
developers operating in the
same subdivision could take the
same housing plan and apply it
to another lot. They get a
reduced permit fee for that.
And then they don't have to,
have the expense of redesigning
those home plans. We're taking
that program, which has been
very successful and expanding
it citywide. So now any, any
permit that is home permit
that's approved, or middle
housing permit that's approved,
that developer, that applicant
can take that same housing plan,
take it outside of doesn't have
to be in the same subdivision.
They can go anywhere in the
city so long as the site
conditions are, are similar.
They can, they can use that set
of plans without having to go
through a full permit review.
So it expedites the permit
process. And, and it's now able
to be used citywide. We had
some discussion at the last
workshop for the pre-approved
plans for like ADUs. We did a
fair amount of research looking
at other jurisdictions, trying
to understand the benefits of
that type of program. There are
risks with that. And so we've
decided that this, we want to
try this master same as program.
We think there will be a much
more, uptake in the use of that.
And I can go into some of the
details on the, on the
pre-approved plans if you want.
Also we're exploring middle
housing, home ownership and
production strategies. The
ability to divide existing lots
into much smaller lots that
maybe have an Adu on them
creates a homeownership
opportunity for someone who,
who only wants to live in that
smaller unit. So the much more,
homeownership opportunities
through that process.
>> Okay. Thanks, Chad. Sorry.
Thanks, Chad.
>> So, the that's still leaves
us with a, a, a, a stalled
pipeline on with our affordable
housing project. So, the market
conditions that we're trying to
address for market rate
development and workforce
development have left, have
spilled over into the
affordable housing sector with
rising costs, driving up the
cost of projects and then
limited state and federal funds
to help close those, those gaps.
So, so we have a pipeline of
about eight existing projects
with 630 units in this 0 to 60%,
am I or area median income
range that are that cannot move
forward without additional
funds. And this is the existing
pipeline right now. We, we
expect to have future projects
coming into the pipeline. We
know developers who are out
there, nonprofit developers,
other developers, the VHA are
working on future projects. So
the pipeline will continue to
grow. And because the projects
are stalled, the dollars that
we have committed from the
affordable housing fund are not
going out. So we have roughly,
$16 million of, of committed
but unspent affordable housing
fund money that is dedicated to
those eight projects. And we
don't have control over these
projects moving forward unless
we have additional funds to put
in those projects, meaning if
the state doesn't award their
funds or they don't find other
funds to close the gap, we are,
we're unable to put our dollars
to work. And then that's, and
then there's also the whole
separate workforce housing
piece of it, which, which needs
assistance, move some of those
projects forward. And, that's
really some of our other tools
that we have, but, but our use
of land is also something that
can help move those projects
forward. And then we're also
expecting to have some, some,
some new projects to provide
affordable homeownership
opportunities, particularly in
the heights projects at a scale
that we haven't really funded
in the past. And those will
need additional dollars, as
well. And so when we presented
last time, we, we brought up
what, what's on the screen
right now, which is some, some,
proposed immediate actions,
with mainly with regard to the
affordable housing fund, that
we're bringing back to you and,
and would like to have a
discussion about. But I just
before I walk through this, I
just want to, in terms of
process, today we're bringing
these, these up. And for
discussion next week at the
workshop time, there will be an
actual affordable housing fund
workshop presentation that will
go into each of these proposals
in depth. So you'll basically
have two opportunities to talk
through those. So if you have
questions, you can bring them
up now and then we'll be able
to respond. And then and then
depending on your your
willingness to consider these
changes, we would then come
back later in the month because
there is a certain timeline to
this with the actual changes to
the affordable housing fund
guidelines for you to take
action on. And then that leads
us into September, where we,
applications for state funding
for next year are due. And so
we would want to update our
awards to those projects. If,
if there is support here to
increase our award amounts. So
that's a process. Just want to
give you like this. We have
multiple opportunities to have
this conversation about these
items here. But the first one,
that which we brought up last
time was to establish a
predevelopment loan fund. So,
we have projects that are, have
a difficult time getting off
the ground and they need money
for Predevelopment. We have the
means to do this through our
affordable housing fund, with,
with funds that, that, through
interest income, we have
another undisbursed funds that
would then be repaid when we,
when the, when the projects
close. So, so the money would
be outstanding for a short
period of time. So it's not
something that would compete
with, the, our direct
investment in projects, the
affordable housing fund
guidelines do not allow for
that or the administrative plan.
So, so we would need council
action on that if you're
supportive of that. The second
one is right now the the
affordable housing fund plan
limits our investment in
projects to, it varies by unit
size, but basically 75000 per
unit. If it's a studio, it's 50.
If it's 2 or 3 bedrooms, it's
100. But on average it's 75,000
per unit. That is at 0 or 50%,
0 to 50% Ami. So, so, even if a
project, needs more money that
and we have the money available,
it's, we're capped at that
amount. And obviously the logic
behind that was to, was to
leverage our money as much as
possible with, with money from
other sources. That amount
hasn't changed since the
inception of the fund. Since in
2016, it's been the per unit
amount was, was added, but the,
the 75,000 is really a decade
old number. So we would like to
talk about the ability to
increase that amount and use it
to close some of the gaps we're
seeing in these projects. The
third, the third change is that
we are sitting on unused
affordable housing fund money
because, the fact that these
projects are stalled is also,
preventing us from using the
rental assistance money that we
have in our affordable housing
fund. People who are in
shelters and are ready to move
out and we have rental
assistance to help them move
into permanent housing. They
don't have units to go into. So
the lack of new affordable
units is, is not only stalling
our investments in those
projects, but it's also
preventing us from dispersing
rental assistance funds as well.
So there's a backlog on those
funds that we have unused money
from that, from that, bucket
that we would like to deploy
into these projects. The fourth,
action is, is a new, request,
but it's, we now have our first,
payments into the fee in lieu
fund that was established for
the multifamily tax exemption
program. So if you recall, when
the multifamily tax exemption
program was updated a few years
ago, we we added a fee in lieu
for market rate projects. And
so the first projects that,
that, that came in under that
they now have finished
construction and they once, and
they've received their
certificate of occupancy. And
so now they've paid into the
fund. So our first payment came
in early this year and we're
expecting our second payment
this fall. So we by the end of
the year, we should have about
$2.9 million in the fee in lieu
fund that we would like to use
to close these project gaps.
We're talking about, those that
request would, would come to
you as part of a specific
project authorization. And then
the last item on this list is,
really with respect to how we
utilize our land in affordable
housing transactions, we would
like to have, you know, in many
cases, it's not just affordable
housing projects need to have
land significantly discounted.
It's the workforce projects
need them to pencil as well.
And so land is one of the more
flexible, tools that we have to
make an investment in a project.
And to date, we've, we've
utilized it as a sliding scale
based on affordability under a
ground lease. And we'd like a
little bit more flexibility to,
in some cases, just donate the
land into the project. Instead
of tying the project with, with
a ground lease payment and
perpetuity, which makes the
project harder to pencil. So
once again, that would be a
proposal. We would bring those
to you on a deal specific basis
as well. So I know that that's
a lot of content there and,
happy to, to now go into
discussion, but I just want to
once again say we will come
back with a specific
presentation next Monday that
will provide the details on the
changes to the affordable
housing fund that we're
requesting so that you can, you
can look at them in more detail.
So with that, happy to take any
questions and feedback.
>> Councilors. Councilor Perez.
>> I am so excited to hear
about the pre-approved plans
and the exploration of
homeownership production
strategies. You mentioned risks
that there are some risks with
those pre-approved plans. Can
you talk a little bit about
that and then share what
strategies are in place to, let
the public know about these
opportunities?
>> Yes, absolutely.
>> Absolutely. And I may have
misspoke. I wasn't speaking
about risks in regard to the,
the, the, the same as plans.
Sorry, I forgot the name. Same
as master plans. I was talking
about the pre-approved Adu
plans. So a quick, discussion
about the differences. This, as
I was saying, the same as plans,
their plans that the builder
has already run through our
system, they've gotten approval,
as long as the site conditions
are similar, there's really no
reason to make them go through
that review process. So they
can now, use those same plans
at a 50% permit fee on any
other property in the city
where the zoning allows it.
What we were talking about at
April was the, the pre-approved
Adu plans. Some jurisdictions
have worked with architects and,
and decided that they would
have anywhere from like two to
5 or 6 Adu plans that anyone
can come and say, I want, I
want to use that model on my
property. But what some of the
risks and this is when I was
talking about risks, it was
about that program is the city
would, in pretty much every
case, we, we, we looked at the
city would buy the plans from
the architect. And so then
there, the city's plans that
anyone can use, there's a cost
to that upfront cost anywhere
from 50 to 100,000 per per home
type. But the risk is that, if
something goes wrong, then
they're looking to us as the
owner of those plans to,
instead of instead of looking
to the designer, also, every
time there's a new code cycle,
those plans wouldn't be, would
have to be updated to comply
with the updated, building
codes. And so there are some
potential ongoing costs that
the city would have. So that's
really what I was, was talking
about.
>> Okay. And then sorry. I like
the list that you have for
proposed immediate actions. And
I had a question about, your
comment about possibly donating
land, the city, donating land,
would that be into community
land trusts?
>> It could be.
>> It's really project specific.
So, so like the project here
outside of City Hall, that land
was essentially donated to the
project. So they own that piece
of property and I think it was
a dollar. So, so it's more of
that just so that the project
isn't carrying any ongoing
costs with land. And, and it's
really thinking about it even
beyond 60% Ami projects. But I
will say for the Heights, just
to give you a preview of the,
when we come to you, hopefully
in the fall with the, the terms
of our proposed homeownership
project with Papish, we will
likely be be proposing donating
the land, and it would be. And
I know they're looking at
either community land trust
structure or a shared
appreciation structure. So so
yes, it would be a useful tool
for home ownership.
>> As well. My, my last comment,
you mentioned $75,000 on
average per unit. Is that per
unit to close the gap that we
currently have right now?
>> So that's our maximum
investment amount. So
regardless of what the project
costs is. So so costs are so
typically like we're seeing,
projects that cost anywhere
350,000 to more than 500,000
per unit, but we'll just stop
at 500,000 per unit. So what
we're saying is we only
contribute 75,000 per unit. And
we don't invest in every unit.
We only invest in the units
that qualify at 50% Ami or less.
So project once again, the
project next door is a good
example. I think we have fewer
than half of the of the units
in that building are at 50% Ami.
So we put money and fewer than
half of the units. The other
half of the units are, I think
60% Ami. And so they're
financed through other means.
But, but when a project, when
we set the 75,000 per unit
number, housing costs per unit
were probably 200,000 per unit
or maybe 225 or 250. So very
different cost environment than
where we are now. And, you know,
ideally, I would love leverage.
I would love as much other
money in the projects, but it's,
it's not only have costs gone
up, but we're not seeing any
other funding source increase
their funding amounts either to,
to close the gap.
>> And that's your comment
about changing that amount
since it was established in
2016, which I am in support of.
Yeah. Thank you. Thank you.
>> Councilor Fox.
>> Yeah. Just a few comments.
One is, I guess comparing our,
our, our permitting and our
development, kind of culture in
the state of Washington with
Texas is kind of a hard sell
for me, given that they don't
have anything comparable when
it comes to comprehensive land
use planning. But I, I
understand, you know, I can, I
can I'm listening when you say
Arizona, Colorado. Okay. And I
am I where I sit, when my other
job have actually worked quite
a bit with Colorado recently.
So it's been kind of an
interesting conversation moving
forward. But with that said, I
was noticing on slide eight,
the fees, you know, the part
that is within our control, you
know, looks like really only
about 10% and then maybe some,
you know, little percentage of
the big blue box. And it is
interesting and maybe this
isn't really for you to maybe
to confirm, but, you know, we
only have about what, 4% in
this total cost that we have
any control of as a city. And
we need some of those fees. We
can't just wave them all.
Otherwise we wouldn't have
staff and things like that to
actually ensure health, life
safety happens in these
buildings. So I just kind of
want to put that out there as
we're trying to tighten our
belts even more here. But my
question is, kind of focusing
on that, mentioned that the Adu
plans, commerce, we just
finished the permit ready plan
database that has 18
communities in the state of
Washington that have
contributed their, their
preapproved plans or permit
ready plans to that database.
Vancouver isn't one of them,
but they also have, said that
there's like offered multiple
different ways for, for cities
to implement such a plan. And
one of them, one of them or
several of them are not. The
city has to own the plan. So
I'm just maybe pointing out
that staff, I know you've had
conversations. That's not my
team. I feel like I always have
to caveat this, but I'm aware
of what the other teams in my
unit are doing. I know you guys
have been talking to that team,
but I, I guess I'd encourage.
>> I failed to mention that. So
I apologize for that. But yes,
the state is working on, on
statewide preapproved plans.
And they've selected seven
townhome designs that they plan
to create permit ready designs
for, for statewide use. So we
can, we can also take advantage
of that here in here in
Vancouver. So we're, we're
continuing to track it.
>> Okay. Yeah, I think it's
kind of exciting actually. I
think that's a pretty neat
program. And it seems like more
people Keip more jurisdictions
kind of keep expressing
interest in it. So another way
for us to lower costs. But my,
my question is if, you had
another slide about the profit
level for the affordable
housing projects and you noted
that kind of 3%. Oh, it's right
on the same slide, 3% is kind
of the profit margin for is
that for affordable housing
projects or all housing
projects.
>> This is for all housing
projects. And, you know, kind
of a generic pro forma, but
it's, yeah, it's, you could,
remove that. There are
developer, you know, there's,
there's a, there's a always a
developer fee in a project. And
then, the return level return
expectation for a market rate
project versus an affordable is
different. And so, so you would,
you would have that savings on
affordable project. So that
number could potentially be
lower, but it would be, it
wouldn't be much. There's still
a developer fee.
>> I was hoping you were going
to say that was just for
affordable housing and that
there's a higher expectation at
market level. So that's an
interesting piece of
information. Okay.
>> No, I mean, I think people
think that there's a lot of a
lot of excess profit in in this,
but it's a pretty standard
formula.
>> I knew it wasn't huge, but I
thought it was higher. So. All
right. Thank you.
>> Councilor Paulson.
>> Thank you, mayor councilor
Paulson speaking. Thank you,
Chad and Patrick for the update.
It's great ongoing conversation
and I appreciate the updates on
our thought direction as well
as looking forward to the
workshop next week. I want to
dive a little bit more into
this idea of master, same as.
So it seems to me, based on the
way that you described
ownership of plans, that that
would really just be the same
developer using the plan. It
wouldn't be available to any
other developer based on the
ownership of the plan. Is that
right? That's right. So it's,
it's, it's beneficial to that
developer, but it's not as
beneficial as a set of plans
that's on the shelf that
anybody can take advantage of,
which is a little bit more like
this concept of an Adu plan
library or the state townhome
and other plan library that
we've also talked about. Yes,
right.
>> The developer would own the
plans. They would have to
update them with each code
cycle. They would, it would be
in their interest to market
those plans. So and they could
be marketing Adu plans or
townhomes. And, this, I just
realized I didn't answer your
second question, councilor
Perez, but it's related. We, we
are working on a marketing
strategy for the city to, to
promote this program.
>> The master same as.
>> Program master, same as.
>> Yeah, it's going to be
another question that I had as
well. I remain interested and
it sounds like based on
Councilor Mayor Pro Tem Fox's
description, that there are
ongoing efforts at multiple
levels of government to create
these libraries that more
people can take advantage of. I
do think that that's a key
piece of the equation going
forward, where more and more
people and I understand that
there could be some upfront
cost, as well as some potential
ongoing costs as building codes
change and plans need to be
updated. But at the same time,
you know, looking at the
possible number of times that
plan could be used over a
period of time between building
code updates and amortizing it
over those numbers of plans and
thinking about the acceleration
of production of housing, the
ease of the process for a
person who might be intimidated
by the process. I do think that
that kind of investment is
worth considering, especially
because we're talking about
other kinds of investment gifts
of land, you know, other kinds
of things. And so I would
encourage you to continue
looking at those and not be so
quick to rule them out based on
the risks that you've outlined
so far. And then the only other
thing that's on my mind is just
thinking about the totality of
your presentation. You know,
you started off by talking
about how do we compare and
what's our theory of change and
then outline some, some
different action steps. And I
appreciate the way that we've
prioritized the upper right
quadrant, you know, bang for
your buck types of investments.
But looking at some of those
other longer term charts, it
also occurs to me that,
although it's low control, low
influence, a big part of this
downturn is related to economic
and in particular rate
environment situation that's
going on right now, which
ultimately gets to the time
value of money, right? And when
talking with folks who do this
kind of thing for a living,
like that's a much bigger deal
now than it was a year ago, two
years ago, three years ago. And
so what that means is that it's
incumbent upon us as policy
makers to, number one, make
sure that the regulatory
environment remains as stable
as possible so that there's
predictability there, but also
that we are as vigilant as we
can be in shortening time
frames of processes that are
within our control, because
each amount of time that passes
by is more interest being
charged at a higher interest
rate. As well as always looking
at the costs of the things that
we do. And I'm wondering, and
this is a suggestion, you know,
we've had 1 or 2 instances
where we've looked at and
examined and changed the time
at which certain fees are
charged. And I'm wondering if
there are other opportunities
like that where we could defer
the payment to a later point in
the process. I don't know the
answer to the question. It
might be no, but it occurs to
me, especially at this moment,
where time value of money is so
significant, anything that we
can move by any period of time
is savings to the developer and
would speed up the process and
produce more housing. And so I
just think that's something
that's worth taking a closer
look at. And I'd love to hear
more about what opportunities
might be available there.
>> Yeah, we do allow for
deferral of impact fees now. So
for middle housing, some
multifamily housing that and
SDC. So those are rather than
being paid at the time of the
building permit, they're paid
at the time of occupancy. So
that can be 18 months plus of,
of times savings that they're
not paying interest on those
loans.
>> Right. And then the last
thing, just because I think we
made it official last week,
this whole we're not collecting
fees in the Evergreen school
District. At our subsequent
workshop, I'd love to see if we
have preliminary data on
whether that's creating a
change in production in the
Evergreen District of Vancouver
versus the Vancouver district
in Vancouver. It's an
interesting, unintended, but
interesting experiment in just
how much impact fees or lack
thereof, impact housing
production.
>> I'm not sure the word's out
broadly, but I think once once
it gets out there in the
development community, we'll be
tracking to see if, if, if
there's a bump in activity
there.
>> Yeah. Thank you.
>> Councilor Hanson.
>> Thank you mayor, just real
quick, we have 680 sitting in
the pipeline. And that's as of
that's from 2026. Correct.
Those weren't rollovers from 25
because it's usually they're
sitting in permitting.
>> No, these are these are
projects that they're not in
permitting. These are projects
that have applied for
affordable housing fund money,
have been applied and awarded
affordable housing money and
have applied for state money
already. So they, they, they
can't get into permitting until
they get their financing. So,
so we track the affordable
housing pipeline separately.
It's it's not in the
development review system yet.
I mean, they may be they may be
early may be pre pre app or
something, but this is the
affordable housing fund
pipeline is what we're talking
about. So like just as we
produce this list for the mayor
and I forget, but you people
from the Department of Commerce
came to Vancouver a couple of
weeks ago when we produced this
list for them. That's what this
is. We showed them. These are
all the projects that have
applied to you and you haven't
funded. And this is the number.
>> Okay. So how's the pipeline
looking?
>> The pipeline itself,
development pipeline is looking
better. I think Chad can can.
>> Give.
>> You that. We we definitely
went down at the third quarter
of 2024. It's been sort of a
steady rebuild in 2025. But our
our 2025 numbers were down from
what we're sorry, we're up from
2024. We're, we're at the
midpoint here of 2026. If we
just doubled what we've gotten
in for the year, we'd be at
about 504 units. You're talking
about multifamily.
>> Yeah. So, so 2026, 500 some
units.
>> As of today. I think you all.
>> Are these.
>> Are receipts, okay. But this
is a permit. So permit activity.
This is hard as of today is, is,
we have almost 900 units
through July, so through seven
months. So we're, we're
definitely above, you know,
we're trending above last year
and 2024 as well. So this is
actual permitted units. Yeah.
So and then you have. Those
focused on the pipeline stuff.
>> The pipeline. Yeah. Yeah.
>> So how many do we have as of
right now for 26.
>> That permitted units is 882
units.
>> 882 units. And what do we do
last year for 2025?
>> For 48.
>> Okay. And it shows why I
think you guys, this whole
process is desperately needed.
And I really applaud and
appreciate your efforts. It's
just good. Thank you for
letting me know where we're at.
Yeah.
>> So we're double and we're
just halfway through the year.
>> Double is a fraction of what.
>> We need. Yeah. Yes.
Councilor Soelberg.
>> Thank you, mayor. Council
member Stover, thank you to
both of you. I, number one,
applaud that. We're being
proactive here. If we're ever
going to get out of this,
that's the, the constant state
we've got to be in is
proactivity. So I really
appreciate all this work and
all this thought process that
you're putting in. I also very
much appreciate your talking
theories of change and do
encourage that. That theory is
really laid out on paper in a
way that we can be clearly,
measuring the, the steps we're
taking and are those steps
achieving so that we can, make
adept adaptations as we go
along. The thing that, that
stood out to me, you know,
Austin kind of went through
what Portland did ten, 15 years
ago, became the hot place. And
what I saw in those in the
overall was this return to norm.
Right? So they're dealing with
these underlying structural
issues just as we are. So, I
agree that there is a different
development environment, but I
also understand they were the
at place. And, and so money was
just flowing there. This
afternoon I was on a affordable
housing. No, not affordable
housing, a housing call with
Association of Washington
cities. And the conversation
we're having tonight is being
happened is happening in cities
throughout the state. And so we
are, we have a lot of
compatriots talking about these
same exact things, from a
statewide standpoint, you know,
the some probably they're going
to happen next legislative
session is continued investment
in the Chips program. Don't ask
me what the Chips program
stands for, but it is a housing
fund. And then.
>> Infrastructure, it's a, it's
a really successful program.
It's a, really, it's an
important program. So we, we
hope to see more chip money.
Yeah, yeah.
>> And then, and, you know, is
there a potential or they're
recognizing that there is this
underlying need that markets,
the financial markets come and
go. And we need more stability
in financing in Washington
state. And so is there some
kind of ask to the to the state?
I think it's been around for a
long time of the state having
financing tools that can help
in these times when the overall
market tightens up, because,
you know, it is it's I in my
opinion, it's not just that the
rates are higher, but, money
isn't flowing there because
higher rates should attract
money there, but people aren't
able to even access money. So
the, the money is getting
locked up. And so, being able
to what, what all these
different ideas that you have
of how can we help unlock money
to help the market, I think is
great. So I'm, I'm excited to
hear more next week and
continue these things forward.
Thank you.
>> Councilor Harless.
>> Yeah, very quick question
and then some comments on slide
nine. Site due diligence
quickly. What is that
definition? So sorry.
>> It's the, the work you do
prior to either site
acquisition or.
>> Development, like
geotechnical environmental
review, things like that to
just determine if the site, you
know, has, is suitable for
development, if you have to
address any other issues on
site. So if we own a piece of
property, the reason why I put
it in that in that quadrant is
if we own a piece of property
like the Heights, we've done
all the due diligence on that.
We've done the geotechnical
work, we've done, we know the
environmental condition. We can
deliver that to a developer and,
and it's up to them, but they
don't have to redo that work
and pay for that.
>> Thank you for that. Yeah, a
couple, thank you for sharing
about the per unit. I was
surprised to hear that it's not
in some way like CPI, you know,
adjusted. Definitely interested
in taking a look at that so we
can fix that, and agree with
some of the statements that
have already been made.
Definitely wanting to lean
towards more home ownership
options, which sounds like
you're going to come back with
soon. You know, because a lot
of this, especially with the
affordable housing fund that is
the voters, the taxpayers that
have said yes to supporting
their neighbors. And it's about,
you know, doing our due
diligence in a sense on this
public monies that is going
back to the people and not just
profits. And so definitely
interested, but also
understanding that it's those
private public partnerships
that are needed to be had in
order to have this housing be
built. Definitely interested in
those land trust options that
have already been talked about.
And also agree with Councilor
Paulson that I look forward to
hearing about additional
options about deferring to kind
of help with those that initial,
block or barrier that can exist
when it comes to having the
initial capital. So the more we
can defer what we need out of a
project, the more it can help
with just kick starting the
project to get going. But
that's, yeah, that's mostly it.
No real additional things that
haven't already been brought up
other than to reiterate that,
you know, thank you for looking
at all the different angles we
can go at and definitely
interested in using that 16
million that's been committed.
Because the more it just sits
there, it's not doing anything
and it's not housing anybody.
So thank you.
>> All right. That concludes
any comments from the council.
Next steps, Patrick or Chad.
>> So next steps primarily
around the, the affordable
housing fund action. So like I
said, you'll have a, another
full workshop on this specific
topic next week with a lot of
detail on per unit
recommendations, things like
that. And then there'll be a
series of actions that then
come through the remainder of
the month, related to changing
the affordable housing fund
administrative plan. And then
you'll see all the projects
that are that are slated to
receive affordable housing fund
awards come before you, before
they then have to apply to the
state in September. So be busy.
Affordable housing fund month.
>> Great. See you next week.
Thank you so much, councilors.
We're going into executive
session concerning pending or
potential litigation. Our CW
42.3 point 110, subsection one,
paragraph by paragraph three.
It is 21 after. Let's start at
530, please. Thank you. We'll
be back for our 630 regular
council meeting. Thank you