Public benefit stiffened the policy lines on Tuesday, May 20, as Thurston County officials listened to calls for tenant-first rent protections at a public hearing.
Locals weighed in on a draft ordinance revising the County Code 2.104, which would grant eligible organizations the right to use county-owned surplus lots for affordable housing, as long as the project serves the public.
If adopted, the ordinance enables the Thurston County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) to enter into agreements with nonprofit or private developers.
All projects must comply with RCW 43.63A.510, a state law that defines “public benefit” as housing for low- and very low-income households, with support services that advocate for economic and housing stability.
RCW 43.63A.510, passed to address statewide housing insecurity, permits local governments to transfer, lease or dispose of idle public land for housing purposes without going to the highest bidder.
The county’s proposal emerged after a nine-month internal review triggered by inquiries from Homes First, a nonprofit that has managed two county-owned homes since 2006.
County Manager Leonard Hernandez said he first became aware of the arrangement when meeting with Executive Director Trudy Soucoup, who explained while the organization had cared for the properties for decades, the county still legally owned the land.
“She mentioned and asked if I was aware of properties that the county owned, but Homes First had been using,” Hernandez said.
Under the current lease terms, if the county were to end the agreement, it would be obligated to relocate the 11 tenants and reimburse Homes First for decades of capital improvements.
The properties include a home for eight women in recovery and their children, and another that houses four adults with developmental disabilities.
“I reached back out to the executive director and mentioned that that arrangement didn’t make sense. There was an openness for us to explore transitioning the ownership,” he said.
Hernandez said a full transfer would create long-term stability for both the tenants and the nonprofit, and it will allow Homes First to continue investing in the homes without hesitation or risk.
He then thanked Capital Projects Planning Manager Rick Thomas and the Community Planning and Economic Development team for trailblazing a policy that could also apply to future surplus land uses.
Thomas clarified the policy applies strictly to real property the county has formally declared “surplus,” meaning no longer needed for county duties, and stated the new rules do not apply to tax title properties, which fall under RCW 36.35 and Thurston County Code 2.105.
“Tax title properties are not owned by the county. They’re held in trust and not eligible for surplus under this proposed amendment,” he said.
Thomas said the ordinance would let the county give or lease unused land to groups that want to build affordable housing or provide public services. Any deal would need to follow county plans, state how the land will be used to help the public, and include rules to make sure it stays that way.
Kim Kelly, a resident and policy advocate, said she supported the board’s direction for strengthening public transparency but asked them to tighten the rules to avoid misuse. She relayed one part of the process is unclear.
“One thing that wasn’t really covered was the notice around the surplus property determinations, which has been a concern for us for a while, and we’ve been waiting to see what that process is going to be," she said.
Kelly warned vague rules on what counts as “affordable” could lead to loopholes, where developers ask for public land but build housing that ends up being too expensive for low-wage earners.
She said this kind of “unintended consequence” could defeat the ordinance’s purpose.
“It might unintentionally open the door for unaffordable housing development on surplus properties,” she said, especially if affordability is calculated using area median income rather than actual wages.
To illustrate, Kelly shared the experience of a friend, a single mother earning minimum wage, who was forced to spend 62% of her gross income on rent in a supposedly “affordable” housing unit. The unit had been priced based on 30% of Thurston County’s median household income, which exceeded the tenant’s income capacity.
Kelly asked the board to make sure any land given for housing leads to rent that people earning minimum wage can afford. She said it is hard to raise a family on $13 to $30 an hour and keep up with basic needs.
“Ensure transparency around surplus property determinations, provide notice, and make absolutely sure that any housing building lands is truly affordable, and to ensure public notice for transfers and that valuable public lands, particularly forests and critical areas, are not given away for free to entities that might not prioritize the public good or the environment the way that you do," she said.
Another resident, Mary Ann Tompkins, who lives in unincorporated Thurston County and serves on the Conservation District Board, said she strongly supports public benefit transfers.
However, she urged the county to review each case carefully to protect both land and water, and any housing development on public land should avoid contributing to urban sprawl in rural areas.
She then suggested the board prioritize towns like Bucoda, Tenino, Rochester, and Rainier, which already have road access, transit links and community services.
“It really should accommodate low-income families where there’s already existing infrastructure, such as transportation and bus routes, medical, health care. … I mean, there’s no map at this time," she said, adding without a public map of surplus properties, residents can’t fully assess how the policy might impact the county.
She also urged the board to protect surplus lands that support drinking water, wildlife and biodiversity, warning local decisions can have lasting environmental impacts.
Soucoup, of Homes First, expressed gratitude on behalf of the nonprofit team and tenants for pushing the ordinance forward. She said not owning the properties had made it hard for them to plan long-term repairs.
Over the years, the group has taken care of everything, fixing roofs, repainting the outside and dealing with serious water damage. They are also preparing to install more solar panels on both homes, but hesitated to commit funding without property title in hand.
To date, the organization has already completed solar installations on 17 homes and is currently working on three more.
“We’re right now putting on number 18, 19, and 20 (solar panels) on 60 … we have 61 properties, so we’re doing pretty good. But of course, we didn’t want to put that investment in when we didn’t actually own the properties," she said.
Soucoup said Homes First has never sold a property in its 35-year history and has consistently capped rent at 30% of a tenant’s income.
“Every year, there are people who are going in there who otherwise would not have a place to live. So, thank you so much. We appreciate your support, and we're always open to turning more surplus property into more affordable housing, and ours is truly affordable," she said.
Next steps include refining the ordinance language to address transparency and affordability concerns before final action.
11 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
JulesJames
Giving away public property to private companies.
Friday, May 23 Report this
Yeti1981
The State Legislature defines the term "affordable," when it comes to housing, as being no more than 1/3 of one's gross monthly income. That is for all income levels. Not just low-income. It's also not conducive to sustaining affordability to focus solely on low-income housing. We need housing at ALL income levels. In fact, the Department of Commerce projects exactly that. All housing construction adds to maintaining a level of affordability. The surplus land policy should benefit everyone, regardless of income level.
Saturday, May 24 Report this
Porter
Don't give anything away with stipulations. Sell it with stipulations.
Saturday, May 24 Report this
Southsoundguy
It’s not affordable, it’s just government subsidized. More projects, more ghettos, and the price of housing will continue to go up.
Saturday, May 24 Report this
OlyBlues
So the county is broke, can't pay employees competitive wages, doesn't have an adequate revenue stream to maintain core county functions, and begs the state legislature to allow an increase in property taxes that WILL negatively affect affordable housing! The county has a fiduciary responsibility to protect every asset the county has. If the county needs money, they should sell off excess property and put the money into the general fund. No more freebies and giveaways. The county cannot afford this!
Saturday, May 24 Report this
HappyOlympian
boooooooo, another horrible idea from our local governments, again either corrupt or incompetent. If the county actually owns surplus land, sell it to developers that will create homes that pay lots of taxes.
Saturday, May 24 Report this
Boatyarddog
So, yeti, just throw the low income folks into the street... because WE KNOW WHAT income bracket will benefit the most.
THE CAPITALIST BRACKET.
Saturday, May 24 Report this
Boatyarddog
S.S.POTATO HEAD AKA SS GUY.
ITS SUBSIDIZED...TAX MONEY FOOL! EVERYBODY PAYS.. AS IT SHOULD BE.
until a worthy Potus Leads the peoples cause... not special Interest Partys GOP, MAGA sluts.
Saturday, May 24 Report this
The_Armed_Gardener
Junkies and government jobs are the centric parts of the plan that they don't say out loud. Then add the kickbacks from the private sector. They think we are stupid. It's a crime in your face, people/fools.
Saturday, May 24 Report this
JW
It is not the government's job to provide affordable housing.
But
If the government actually cared to make housing affordable, they would cut all the red tape and useless regulations.
Sunday, May 25 Report this
Southsoundguy
Boatyard you are an unhinged commie.
Monday, May 26 Report this