Thurston County holds public hearing on ordinance to allow transfer of surplus land for affordable housing

Thurston County held a public hearing May 20 on a proposed amendment to Thurston County Code chapter 2.104 that would allow the Board of County Commissioners to transfer, lease or otherwise dispose of surplus county real property for affordable-housing and related public-benefit purposes under state law.

The proposed code change would align county rules with RCW 39.33.015 and allow the county to negotiate terms, including no-cost transfers, with public, private or nonprofit entities when the board determines a transfer will produce a public benefit such as affordable housing, temporary housing for people experiencing homelessness, or services that support affordable-housing goals. Rick Thomas, capital plant projects planning manager, told the board the update was drafted following review by county legal counsel and is intended to provide flexibility to partner with community organizations.

The ordinance does not affect tax-title properties, Thomas said, and he emphasized that tax-title properties are held in trust and therefore are not eligible as surplus under the proposed rule. Thomas also told the board that any transfer would need to consider appraisal costs, debt service, closing costs, existing bond covenants and consistency with locally adopted comprehensive plans, and that transfer instruments would include covenants requiring the property’s use for the stated public benefit.

The public comment period included both support and concern. Trudy Soukup, chief executive officer of Homes First, said her nonprofit has managed two county-leased homes for nearly 20 years and that ownership would allow continued investment in the properties. “For the last 20 years, we have maintained these homes. One is a home for eight women in recovery and their children. The other home is for adults with developmental disabilities,” Soukup said. She told the board Homes First guarantees tenants are charged no more than 30% of income and that transferring ownership would allow additional capital improvements such as solar panels.

Kim Kelly, a commenter who said she submitted written remarks, thanked staff for the proposed notice approach but urged stronger safeguards. “I’m concerned the way the ordinance is written it might unintentionally open the door for unaffordable housing development on surplus properties, especially if they’re transferred at no or low cost,” Kelly said, describing a personal example of a friend whose rent reached roughly 62% of income in a supposed subsidized unit.

Mary Ann Tompkins, who identified herself as a resident of unincorporated Thurston County and as a conservation district board supervisor, said she supports prioritizing public-benefit transfers over sales to the highest bidder but urged case-by-case review and protections for rural lands and natural resources. Tompkins suggested transfers be targeted to properties near existing infrastructure and transit.

Commissioners asked staff to return with options for a formal notice process. Assistant County Manager Josh Cummings and other staff said the board could require public hearing notice or a noticing process similar to that used for tax-title properties and suggested bringing proposed language back to a future work session. The county manager, Linda Hernandez, and staff noted the proposal was developed in response to a Homes First request and a review of the county’s existing property agreements, which revealed potential relocation and repayment obligations if the county were to end leases; Hernandez said ending one such agreement could require relocating “about 11 families” and paying for improvements to the nonprofit.

The board closed the public hearing and instructed staff to draft additional notice language and return with options; a commissioner moved to close the hearing and another seconded the motion. The record shows the motion carried with aye votes with no roll-call tally recorded in the public transcript.

The proposed code amendment remains before the board; staff will return with recommended notice language and a timeline for next steps so the board can consider any modifications before taking a formal vote.