Affordable housing was the focus of the county's comprehensive plan in 2001, and it's still the focus in the draft update that was to be reviewed by the La Plata County Planning Commission Thursday night.
It was the first look at housing issues. Comp plan meetings are the first Thursday each month at the County Administration Building, 1101 E. 2nd Ave. in Durango.
Both the 2001 plan and the draft update use the federal HUD definition of affordable housing, that the family is paying no more than 30 percent of its monthly income for housing.
The big change from 2001 is in median home or rent prices.
The 2001 plan lists median home prices from 1998: $127,000 in Bayfield, $180,000 in Durango, $109,000 in Ignacio, and $167,175 in the rural county. Households with less than qualifying income for a median priced home were 39 percent in Bayfield, 54 percent in Durango, 33 percent in Ignacio and 51 percent in the rural county.
The draft update says that since 2001, the median home price increased 63 percent in the county and 73 percent in Durango, while median household income only increased 48 percent.
The update says that as of 2010, more than 50 percent of available jobs in the county were in lower paying service and retail/wholesale sectors. It says that 60 percent of people who work in Durango don't live there.
The draft update cites a housing demand forecast released in June 2015 by the Regional Housing Alliance that 31 percent of home buyers and 46 percent of renters in the county pay more than 30 percent of monthly income for their housing.
In 2000, 23 percent of home buyers and 42 percent of renters paid above 30 percent of monthly income, the draft update says.
Both the 2001 version and the draft update say high housing costs push families to outlying areas with less central infrastructure, often in a mobile or modular home on individual wells and septic systems; but the shift to outlying areas creates other costs for those families.
Both say the cost of land is often the least significant factor in housing costs, that other things like mortgage interest rates and construction costs also are factors; also the cost of installing infrastructure.
Both say that if all other factors are equal, higher density development is probably the best way to minimize housing costs.
Both refer to incentive-based and regulatory-based ways to promote affordable housing. The 2001 plan says the county focus has been incentive-based, such as density bonuses or tax benefits. The update lists another option, for the local government or some other entity besides the developer to install infrastructure, to reduce the costs that must be passed on to the buyers.
The regulatory approach involves some commitment by a developer to include affordable housing as a condition of approval.
With variations, both the 2001 plan and draft update urge a review of existing county regulations to look for ways to remove barriers to affordable housing. The update also has a policy to encourage the integration of affordable housing within market rate developments; and one to explore property tax or other relief mechanisms for elderly and low income households facing rising property tax burdens.
