— from San Juan County Communications —
What is the “Home Fund?” The Home Fund is a ballot measure (Proposition 1) that will be on the ballot this November.
The Home Fund is a proposed local affordable housing funding source recommended to the County Council by the Housing Bank Commission as part of the actions assigned in the Affordable Housing Strategic Action Plan. The Council passed Resolution 24-2018 in May setting an election for the imposition of a one-half of one percent (0.5%) real estate excise tax (REET) as the revenue source for a new Home Fund.
A REET is applied to the sale of real property. It is a one-time fee paid at the time of a real estate sale and is not an ongoing property tax nor retroactive on prior sales. The purchaser is responsible for paying 99% of the REET, with the seller responsible for the remaining 1%. For example, the sale of a home priced at $500,000 would incur a REET of $2,500 of which the seller would be responsible for $25. The 0.5% amount is authorized and set by RCW 82.46.075. The County does not have authority to change this rate, nor the rates of other REETs currently in effect in the County until their sunset dates.
The REET would serve the largest population of any available housing funding measure, up to 115% of the area-median income. Examples of jobs that may qualify with salaries at or below 115% of median income include: teachers, medical lab technicians, firefighters, retail clerks, mechanics, senior services specialists, maintenance workers, and many more.
If approved by voters, the Home Fund would run for 12 years and generate an estimated $15,166,505 for affordable housing projects in San Juan County, and could attract an additional $47,131,433 in federal, state and private funding for those projects. The San Juan County Department of Health & Community Services, with oversight, input and direction provided by the County Council, would administer programs funded by the REET. Learn more about the County’s adopted plan for managing this fund.
Please feel free to contact either Ryan Page, Housing Program Coordinator: ryanp@sanjuanco.com, or Mark Tompkins, H&CS Director, markt@sanjuanco.com, if you have any questions.
Because affordable housing, especially long-term rentals, have become scarce globally in locations where homes are used for short-term lodging such as vacation rentals and AirBnB, I have to wonder if it doesn’t make more sense to limit the number of transient housing units to a percentage of overall housing units in the county. Otherwise, we’ll see an increase in taxes in order to build more homes and increase housing density while many homes sit empty most of the year. Is our goal to increase taxes, build more homes, and by extension support the ongoing practice of long-term rentals being converted to vacation homes? Or is it to ensure affordable housing and not turn our neighborhoods into mostly empty homes reserved for tourists? Ultimately, would we be paying more taxes only to accommodate the recent increases in tourism while overbuilding the island and straining our limited resources?
My first concern was the possible impact on funding for OPAL. This has been put to rest by Hillary Canty. Now I am really in favor of the Proposition. We have supported OPAL for a long time and this Proposition would only enhance OPAL’s work.
It would be nice if the language could be consistent. This is a tax – “real estate excise tax” – and not a “fee”.
One effect of this tax is to increase the cost to purchase a home in the county, which is antithetical to the idea of reducing the cost of housing.
From a factual perspective, what is the “area-median income”? This is mentioned above, but no value is provided.
Finally, where can I “Learn more about the County’s adopted plan for managing this fund”?
– rob
I don’t think adding a small fee is a bad idea however this doesn’t address the shortage of rentals. It simply helps fund more development.
I personally feel that the simplest solution is to reduce the profitability of short term rentals. The county should treat vacation rentals exactly the same as B&Bs and hotels. Short term rentals generate more income and guests tend to make less mess then long term renters,
so financially I have a greater incentive to do short term rental. If however I was required to pay an additional fees for short term rental and comply with Department of Health inspections, fire department inspections and septic inspection, and electrical inspections ANNUALLY, I might find that short term rentals don’t make financial sense.
I don’t see that we are lacking housing, I see that we lack good paying jobs and vacation rentals are simply too profitable.
Don’t build more houses that underpaid works can’t afford to maintain, decrease investment property.